Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DSD-2024-432 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/019/T/ES - 60 Trussler Road - 1000160668 Ontario Corp.
Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: October 7, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 7 DATE OF REPORT: September 17, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-432 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/019/T/ES 60 Trussler Road 1000160668 Ontario Corp. RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/019/T/ES requesting to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051, for 1000160668 Ontario Corp. be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2024-432 as Attachment 'Al' and `A2'. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment application for the subject lands located at 60 Trussler Road. It is planning staff's recommendation that the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved. The proposed amendment supports the creation of 64 dwelling units on an underutilized site that formerly contained one single detached dwelling that has been demolished. Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site; o installation of a large billboard notice sign on the property; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o Neighbourhood Meeting held on September 12, 2024; o postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting; o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on September 13, 2024. This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 72 of 224 • This application was deemed complete on July 12, 2024. The Applicant can appeal this application for non -decision after October 10, 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the subject lands addressed as 60 Trussler Road is proposing to change the Zoning from `Low Rise Residential One Zone' (RES -1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5), and to add a Site Specific Provision in Zoning By-law 2019-051. Staff are recommending that the application be approved. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener has received an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment from 1000160668 Ontario Corp. for a development concept that proposes 3 three-storey multiple dwelling buildings with sixty-four (64) residential units. The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on the City's Urban Structure (Map 2 - City of Kitchener Official Plan) and designated as `Low Rise Residential' (Map 3 - City of Kitchener Official Plan). Site Context The subject lands are municipally addressed as 60 Trussler Road. The subject lands are on the east side of Trussler Road between Highland Road West and Cora Drive. The lot area of the subject site is approximately 0.61 hectares and the lot frontage is 36.6 metres. The lot is vacant, and formerly contained a single detached dwelling, demolished in 2022. The surrounding neighbourhood is comprised of a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial uses, as well as park space (Walda Figure 1 - Location Map: 60 Trussler Road u Woods Park). Page 73 of 224 ,qac SUBJECT ARA a ©.q O � w � p .p C� W z a� C G° C� Figure 1 - Location Map: 60 Trussler Road u Woods Park). Page 73 of 224 Figure 2 — View of Existing Vacant Site REPORT: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property with three (3), 3 -storey stacked townhouse buildings totalling 64 dwelling units. The balance of the lands includes amenity areas, surface parking, patio spaces, and landscaped areas. Through the review and evaluation of this application, the development concept was slightly revised from its initial submission. The applicant has removed one dwelling unit, in order to reduce unit count and comply with minimum parking standards. The original concept required 74 parking spaces and proposed to provide 73 which require relief from the City's Zoning By-law. The applicant removed one unit, lowering the requirement to 73 parking spaces resulting in compliance with minimum parking standards. The building height was also reduced by 0.6 metres (total height of 11 metres) in order to comply with the existing maximum permitted height in the current and proposed zoning. The applicant has also responded to the neighbourhood request for a taller fence as a visual barrier, and has added a site specific to require a 2.4 metre high visual barrier fence rather than the City's minimum standard of 1.8 metres. Page 74 of 224 Figure 3- Concept Plan Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has approved an integrated province -wide land use planning policy document, replacing the current Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with a singular Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) which will come into effect October 20, 2024. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is currently consulting on transition provisions for the 2024 PPS. A final decision on this application is currently scheduled for Council on October 21, 2024, after the 2024 PPS will come into effect. In anticipation of Council's decision on or after October 20, 2024, staff have also evaluated this application for conformity with the proposed 2024 PPS as well. Page 75 of 224 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed zoning facilitates a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a low-rise development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, is transit -supportive and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024 is a streamlined province -wide land use planning policy framework that replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 while building upon housing -supportive policies from both documents. The PPS 2024 came into force on October 20, 2024. The PPS 2024 provides municipalities with the tools and flexibility they need to build more homes. Some examples of what it enables municipalities to do are; plan for and support development and increase the housing supply across the province; and align development with infrastructure to build a strong and competitive economy that is investment -ready. Sections 2.1.6 and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS 2024 promotes planning for people and homes and supports planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment while achieving complete communities by, accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs. Policies further promote, improving accessibility and social equity, and efficiently using land, resources, and existing infrastructure. Page 76 of 224 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range, and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. Planning staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area and the proposed development Page 77 of 224 conforms to Policy 2.F of the ROP as the proposed development will support the achievement of the minimum intensification targets within the delineated Built -Up Area. Growth is directed to the Built Up Area of the Region to make better use of infrastructure that can assist in transitioning the Region into an energy efficient, low carbon community. Furthermore, intensification within the Built -Up Area assists the gradual transition of existing neighbourhoods within the Region into 15 -minute neighbourhoods that are compact, well connected places that allow all people of all ages and abilities to access the needs for daily living within 15 minutes by walking, cycling or rolling. The applicant has proposed stacked townhouses, which is encouraged as a form of missing -middle housing in the Delineated Built -Up Area. This development, while proposing only residential uses, introduces additional units and housing types to a neighbourhood that already includes some townhomes and is in proximity to transit services on Highland Road West, employment uses, and a Regional Employment Area (185m north of the site). The Region of Waterloo has indicated they have no objections to the proposed application. (Attachment `C'), provided a requested holding provision for noise and record of site condition is applied. Planning staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) Urban Structure The subject lands are identified as a `Community Areas' in the City's Urban Structure (Map 2). The planned function of Community Areas is to provide residential uses as well as non- residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas. Community Areas may have limited intensification with development being sensitive and compatible with the character, form, and planned function of the surrounding context. Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan (Map 3). Low Rise Residential areas are intended to accommodate a full range of low density housing types including single detached, semi-detached, townhouse, and low-rise multiple dwellings. The Low Rise Residential designation states that the City will encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. No buildings shall exceed 3 storeys or 11 metres in height. No Official Plan amendment is required to implement the Zoning By-law Amendment application. The maximum building height has been amended to be less than 11 metres. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Zoning By-law Amendment will facilitate a housing form that conforms with the Low Rise Residential land use designation in the City's Official Plan. Transportation The City's Official Plan contains policies to develop, support, and maintain a complete, convenient, accessible and integrated transportation system that incorporates active transportation, public transit, and accommodates vehicular traffic. In regard to alternate modes of transportation, objectives of the Official Plan include promoting land use planning and development that is integrated and conducive to the efficient and effective operation of public transit and encourages increased ridership of the Page 78 of 224 public transit system. The City shall promote and encourage walking and cycling as safe and convenient modes of transportation. The proposed development aims to increase density on an existing site that is served by public transit, with access to Grand River Transit Routes 1 & 77. The proposed development is required to provide safe, secure indoor bicycle storage to encourage active transportation. Staff is of the opinion that the requested Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the transportation policies of the City's Official Plan. Urban Design The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design is a vital component of city planning and goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual buildings and also considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of strengthening complete communities. Urban Design policies in the 2014 Official Plan support creating visually distinctive and identifiable places, structures and spaces that contribute to a strong sense of place and community pride, a distinct character and community focal points that promote and recognize excellence and innovation in architecture, urban design, sustainable building design and landscape design. The City will require high quality urban design in the review of all development applications through the implementation of the policies of the Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. The proposed development concept includes a street facing building (building A), that orients massing and unit entrances towards the street line along Trussler Road. Street fronting articulation includes at -grade patios as well as second and third floor balconies. Pedestrian connectivity throughout the site is provided through pedestrian walkways from the unit entrances alongside the building leading to the sidewalk on Trussler Road. On-site amenity area is achieved through one at grade passive amenity space at the rear of building A, one at grade amenity space at the rear of building B, as well as private unit balconies. Housing The City's primary objective with respect to housing in the Official Plan is to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. This low rise multiple dwelling proposal is a "missing middle" housing type and provides an option that bridges the gap between high density residential towers and single detached dwellings. The proposed housing type is an important segment in Kitchener's housing continuum. Policy 4.C.1.9. Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility. Policy 4.C.1.12. The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. Page 79 of 224 Policy 4.C.1.22: The City will encourage the provision of a range of innovative housing types and tenures such as rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium ownership including common element condominium, phased condominium and vacant land condominium, as a means of increasing housing choice and diversity. Based on the above housing policies, staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan. Policy Conclusion Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are zoned `Low Rise Residential One Zone (RES -1)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The applicant has requested to change the zoning to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' and add a Site Specific Provision (411) and Holding Provision (93H) in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The requested change in zoning category is to permit the proposed use of a "Multiple Dwelling". Site -Specific Provision (411) a. Permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.4 metres b. Require a visual barrier with a minimum height of 2.4 metres Side Yard Setback: The interior side yard requirement is intended to provide pedestrian access for site functionality and adequate building separation. The request for a 2.4 metre setback rather than the required 3 metres is for one of the three proposed buildings (Building A) and is on the north property line abutting the parking lot for the existing industrial facility on the neighbouring lands (Heroux Devtek). This reduction brings building A further from the existing low-rise residential lands to the south and allows for a landscaped drive aisle and pedestrian walkway alongside the drive aisle. The proposed 2.4 metre setback maintains pedestrian access and contributes to provision of a functional site for vehicles and pedestrians along the main entrance. Adequate building separation can be achieved, as the existing industrial building to the north is located over 60 metres from the property line and is buffered by the site's employee parking area and landscaped buffers. Visual Barrier Height: The City's Zoning By-law requires a visual barrier to be a minimum of 1.8 metres (6 feet) it height. This is typically achieved with a board -on -board wood fence. As a response from requests from abutting property owners, the applicant has agreed to increase the height of the fence to 2.4 metres (8 feet) in order to provide additional screening and privacy. Page 80 of 224 Landscaping will also be provided south of the proposed parking area, to buffer the parking lot from the adjacent rear yards along Cora Drive and Rauch Court. Holding Provision (93H) Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By- law Amendment: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until such time as a Stationary Noise Study is submitted and approved and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services, if necessary, and until a satisfactory Record of Site Condition has been submitted to the Ministry of Conservation and Parks, and that the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter are provided to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services advising that such noise study or studies has been approved and an agreement, if necessary, has been entered into with the City and/or Region, as necessary, providing for the implementation of any recommended noise mitigation measures. Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provision (93H). Official Plan policies require that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to facilitate the implementation of the change in zoning to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone' (RES -5) and the establishment of Site -Specific Provision (411). The City will enact a by-law to remove the holding symbol when all the conditions set out in the holding provision have been satisfied, permitting redevelopment in accordance with the zoning category assigned. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning of the subject lands to `RES -5' with Site Specific Provision 411 represents good planning as it will facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a 64 -unit multiple dwelling that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, which will add visual interest at the street level, and which will appropriately accommodate on-site parking needs. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Attachments 'Al' and `A2'. Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken in August to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment "C" of this report. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: Page 81 of 224 Planning Opinion Report Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Urban Design Report Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Building Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections, Renderings Prepared by: Reinders and Law Ltd, June 4, 2024 Tree Management Plan Prepared by: Hill Design Studio, April 5, 2024 Truck Turning Plan Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Functional Site Servicing and Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: GM Blue Plan Engineering, May 24, 2024 Geotechnical Report: Prepared by: Chung & Vander Doelen, October 30, 2020 Sustainability Statement Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Civil Engineering Plans Prepared by: GM Blue Plan Engineering, February 29, 2024 Environmental Noise Impact Study Prepared by: GHD Limited, April 16, 2024 Fire Route Plans Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Transportation Impact Study Prepared by: Paradigm Solutions Limited, May 2024 WHAT INE HEARD isThirty -Seven (37) people provided comments A City -led Neighbourhood Meetings held on September 12, 2024 and approximately Thirty -One (31) different users logged on Page 82 of 224 283 households (occupants and property owners) were circulated and notified (including 6 within Wilmot Township) Staff received written responses from 37 residents with respect to the proposed development. These are included in Attachment `D'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on September 12, 2024. In addition, staff had follow-up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment Loss of privacy will occur on The applicant has designed the site to locate the abutting lots addressed on Cora buildings as close to the north property line Drive. (industrial lands) and furthest from the south property line (low-rise residential lands — Cora Drive and Rauch Court rear yards). The buildings greatly exceed the minimum 3 metre side yard setback, with proposed setbacks of approximately 9 metres for building A and 18 metres for buildings B and C. A visual barrier will be required on the abutting property line — a special regulation provision is recommended to increase the minimum height of the visual barrier from 1.8 metres to 2.4 metres. Infrastructure and Sanitary The City's Engineering staff have provided clearance Service Capacity that there is adequate sanitary capacity for the proposed development. Cars are speeding on Trussler This section of Trussler Road was approved for Hot Road, this development will Spot Improvements in the 2024 Vision Zero report exacerbate the issue & approved by City Council in May 2024. Hot Spot suggestion that Trussler Road Improvements will include a series of raised should be a cul-de-sac and not a measures (humps) that will be installed in the fall of through road. 2024. Transportation Staff have provided this location to the Waterloo Region Police Service (WRPS) as a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) location. Police are assigning resources here. Concerns raised by some of the residents relate to cut through traffic of heavy duty vehicles which is not a factor of this application, however City Transportation staff have been made aware and mitigation measures are proposed as outlined above. Parking is insufficient for the The applicant is meeting the minimum parking development standards in the zoning by-law and has withdrawn their request for a reduction in parking. Page 83 of 224 Water drainage could occur onto The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater abutting lands Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering division, in which they ensure that all stormwater is infiltrated on site or directed to the City's stormwater infrastructure within the right-of- way on Trussler Road. The site will be required to be graded to ensure no stormwater drains onto abutting lands. Catch basins are proposed to be installed within the parking area. Currently, storm water on site is not currently controlled and either infiltrates or sheet flows off-site. The height should be reduced to 3 storeys and 11 metres in height is permitted 2 storeys currently in the existing RES -1 zoning. As of right, a 3 storey detached dwelling could be constructed 3 metres from the side property line abutting the existing homes on Cora Drive. The applicant is not requesting an increase in building height as part of this application and has positioned the proposed buildings on the north side of the property, away form the existing residential uses. Lighting standards erected in the The applicant is required to submit a site lighting parking lot will cast light and plan from a professional lighting engineer that cause nuisance to abutting demonstrates that the lighting standards are dark properties sky compliant and that there are cut offs installed to prevent light trespass onto abutting lands. The City's urban design staff will review and approve the lighting plan through the site plan process to ensure these standards are met. Concerns about site location in a The Region of Waterloo requires the applicant to source water protection area prepare a "risk management plan" under the Clean Water Act, and requires any future condominium corporation to adhere to it, including standards regarding the application of road salt to the parking area. Loss of trees on site will occur The applicant will be required to plant new trees in the landscaped and amenity areas as part of a landscape plan through site plan approval. Question as to whether the site Applicant has advised that the units are intended to was affordable, or rent -geared- be condominiums for market value. to -income Planning Conclusions: In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the 2020 and Page 84 of 224 2024 Provincial Policy Statements, conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. The proposed application represents an opportunity to provide `missing middle' housing that addresses a need in our community. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. A large notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in early June. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and who attended the Neighbourhood Meetings. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on September 13, 2024 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix C). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on August 8, 2024. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 37 members of the public, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Proposed Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 • Region of Waterloo Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina —Manager, Development Approvals, Development and Housing Approvals Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services Page 85 of 224 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment Al — Proposed By-law Attachment A2 — Map No. 1 Attachment B — Newspaper Notice Attachment C — Department and Agency Comments Attachment D — Neighbourhood Comments Attachment E — Concept Plan Page 86 of 224 DSD -2024-432 Attachment "A" PROPOSED BY — LAW , 2024 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — 1000160668 Ontario Corp. — 60 Trussler Road) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Low Rise Residential One Zone (RES -1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (411) and Holding Provision (93H). 2. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (411) thereto as follows: "411. Notwithstanding Table 7-6 of this By-law within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) The minimum side yard setback shall be 2.4 metres. b) The minimum height for a visual barrier shall be 2.4 metres." 4. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (93H) thereto as follows: "93. Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) and shown as being affected by this Page 87 of 224 DSD -2024-432 Attachment "A" subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix "A", no residential uses shall be permitted until such time as the following condition has been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: a) A detailed transportation (road) and stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures recommended to the satisfaction of the Region. b) A satisfactory Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks or any successor Ministry ("MECP"). This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region is in receipt of a letter from MECP advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to the satisfaction of the MECP." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of '2024. Mayor Clerk Page 88 of 224 �Z N z U LLI z w w LLi z z 0 z z rn i �_ O w J LLi w z 0 0 ON O p LL o N W Z O W z a W Z O N N N O N W O W D W Z Q N z N ON a N U z = p> N q O Q w z - > O= J U 2 Q D W p J> z} O H LL LLn O > Q> J J J J J Q Q Q Q Q W C/)J w r NU LL Z Q Q Z ap Z Of O O (n W 0 0 0 0 0 U� } (n LLJ_ O= p CO fn Q >L w m � 0U> U �` 0 O W p 0 W- p Z OU U Of Of Of Of Of w< z N z W O W H (n W U a W- ua Q O N J Q J a w w w w w cn cn cn cn W Q Z W Q Q L J Q H Of W W IL O CO m� 2Z af Q U) n � W 0- O OfZxN Z ON m A\a H U z > W > O cnU? E W p o�OWz N d' W W �w>>>>>>>>>> a_j 0 0 0 0 0 pw�af Z UJ afpwz N Q Z =H w Z�J.-�> >>L: 0 Q z}(7 a� �0 N z 0 N— w�d2 Z �F- m W WOOF- WW0'W W N (h V LO J IL IL dZ U af (n (n (n (n (n Z2QU LU r Z iOf U) QQLL�1-�Q O~Z � O �� QO2 (n W W W W W m U ww wN Z O of of of of of OULL� N(n0Y Q LU Va }'Q Cl) .-. L?1 1 N Z W 0 Z (n W U_ N W N LU J > OOf 0 „ Ch W " 1'7Z 1 LLJ Q w 0 /� Z N $ A! 1 m a U 0 !�0`` LL `LLI ? Z — U p y V z z "Im W W Z LL cub JIB olo p N LL O io w W VIV N O y,y o (� J 1 N (YO 0 Cl) �� 1------ W 4 �--� = -- -3 ---- -�- U 0LLI LO w O W NZ y� ! 1 O d o- , ZO A. 1 W in 0 w rL 1 2 (Q U Q o ' U) Q. � X �p 1 U J a N 1 rL 22 CL r OU 0 w w 1 1 ■ O � F- 1 O EE a� J 1 Q W 1 1 ZU) O (n a a 000 1 1 0 1 0 1 � 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING fora development in your neighbourhood 60 Trussler Road Concept Drawing Stacked 64 Dwelling Townhouses Units 3 Buildings, 3 Storeys Each I IT(',HENL Have Your Voice Heard! Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Date: October 7, 2024 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 201 King Street West orVirtual Zoom Meeting Go to kitchener.ca/meetings and select: • Current agendas and reports (posted 10 days before meeting) • Appear as a delegation • Watch a meeting To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.ca/ PlanningApplications or contact: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner eric.schneider@ kitchener.ca 519.741.2200 x7843 The City of Kitchener will consider an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the site with the removal of the existing single detached residential building and replacing it with three (3) 3 -storey stacked townhouse buildings having a total of 64 dwelling units, a Floor Space Ratio of 0.57 and 73 parking spaces. The Zoning By-law Amendment would change the Zoning m RE�bht�-rn t- nd also include sites specific provisions for an increase in buildin hi , e uired P Pq parking, and a reduction in side yard setback. Region of Waterloo Eric Schneider Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Schneider, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephane:519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Will Towns 1-519-616-1868 File: C14/2/24019 September 10, 2024 Re: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/019 60 Trussler Road 1000160668 Ontario Corp. c/o Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. City of Kitchener On behalf of the property owner, Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. has submitted a zoning by-law amendment (ZBA) application for a development proposal at 60 Trussler Road in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing to develop a currently -vacant lot with three, three-storey multi - residential buildings (stacked/back-to-back townhomes) containing a total of 64 units, 73 parking spaces, and an outdoor amenity area. A vacant land condominium proposing low- density residential use of these lands was draft approved in September 2021 by the City of Kitchener (30CDM-21207). The property is located in the Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the ROP; designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan; and zoned Low Rise Residential One (RES -1). The ZBA seeks to change the zone category to RES -5 to permit the proposed form, and seeks site-specific relief from side -yard setback, parking, and building height requirements. The site is located in the Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan; designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan; and zoned Low Rise Residential -4 (RES -4). The ZBA proposes to change the zone category to RES -5 to permit the proposed built form (stacked townhomes) and seeks relief from maximum FSR and minimum rear yard setback requirements. Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 1 of 8 Page 91 of 224 The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Community Planning Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2020 The PPS encourages the development of livable communities. It also provides a framework for planning authorities to ensure the wise use of resources while protecting Ontario's long-term prosperity and environmental and social well-being. It directs growth to built-up areas and promotes a mix of land uses that efficiently use resources, minimize negative environmental impacts, and support active transportation and transit use. Policy 1.2.6 requires the assessment of compatibility in instances where sensitive uses are proposed in proximity to industrial facilities. The Planning Opinion Report prepared by Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. (dated June 2024) provides a review of applicable PPS policies. The development proposes an intensified use of serviced (and underutilized) land in proximity to transit services, expands the range of housing options in the neighbourhood and proposes some diversity in unit types (both one and two-bedroom units proposed). PPS policy 1.2.6 is not explicitly addressed in the Planning Opinion Report — however, compatibility in this location relates primarily to stationary noise, and these issues are addressed in the Updated Environmental Noise Impact Study prepared by GHD Group Ltd. (dated April 16, 2024). This study is discussed in a later section. Overall, Regional staff are satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the PPS. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan recognizes the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) as a fast-growing and dynamic region. It directs development in a way that supports economic prosperity, the environment, and quality of life — specifically emphasizing intensification, compact built form, and housing choice in built-up areas. The Planning Opinion Report provides an analysis of applicable Growth Plan policies, including comments on the proposed development's emphasis on intensification and proximity to transit services. The site's location within the Built Up area on underutilized, serviced land is in keeping with Growth Plan direction, and therefore Regionals staff are satisfied that the application conforms with the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan Section 1.6 of the Regional Official Plan establishes the overview of the Regional Planning Framework and Section 2.13.1 and 2.0 establish policies for the Urban System. Section 2.F of the Regional Official Plan establishes policies for intensification targets within the Delineated Built -Up Area, which is set at 60 percent annually for the City of Kitchener. Furthermore, development in the Built Up Area is intended to provide gentle density and other missing middle housing options that are designed in a manner that supports the achievement of 15 -minute neighbourhoods. The proposed density will contribute to the achievement of Kitchener's intensification target for the Delineated Built Up Area. In addition, the applicant has proposed stacked townhouses throughout the development, which is encouraged as a form of missing - Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 2 of 8 Page 92 of 224 middle housing in the Delineated Built -Up Area. This development, while proposing only residential uses, introduces additional units and housing types to a neighbourhood that already includes some townhomes and is in proximity to transit services on Highland Road West, employment uses, and a Regional Employment Area (185m north of the site). Staff are satisfied that the application conforms to the ROP. Corridor Planning Condition of Approval for ZBA Approval of the noise study and would be required prior to final approval of the ZBA. Environmental & Stationary Noise Staff note that a noise study entitled Updated Environmental Noise Impact Study Proposed Residential Development 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener, Ontario dated April 16, 2024, and prepared by GHD Group Ltd. was submitted in support of this application. Stationary noise sources from proximate industrial uses within 500m of the site were included in the analysis. The study was circulated to a third -party peer reviewer for review and comment, and comments from the peer reviewer will be provided under separate cover. Should the application proceed to Council for approval prior to the receipt of peer review comments, the Region will require a holding provision until the preliminary study is completed and a detailed noise study addressing final design of the site and its impact on surrounding sensitive land uses and itself is prepared and accepted by the Region. Required wording for the holding provision is as follows: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until satisfactory preliminary and detailed stationary noise studies have been completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of noise (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. Region of Waterloo International Airport (Advisory) Please be advised that the lands are subject to the Region of Waterloo International Airport Zoning Regulations issued under the federal Aeronautics Act. The purpose of the Regulations is two -fold: 1) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Region of Waterloo International Airport site from being used or developed in a manner that is incompatible with the safe operation of the airport or an aircraft; and 2) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of facilities used to provide services relating to aeronautics from being used or developed in a manner that would cause interference with signals or communications to and from aircraft or to and from those facilities. It is the landowner's responsibility to be aware, and to make all users of the land aware of the restrictions under these Regulations, which may include but are not limited to height restrictions on buildings or structures, height of natural growth, interference with Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 3 of 8 Page 93 of 224 communications, and activities or uses that attract birds. While not a concern with the proposed application, please be advised that the height limit at this location is approximately 157m above ground level. All buildings and cranes must not exceed this height. Other A Site Plan pre -consultation fee of $300 and a Site Plan review fee of $805 will be required for the review and approval of a future Site Plan application. Record of Site Condition In accordance with the Region's Implementation Guideline for the Review of Development Applications on or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is required due to the presence of a "high" potential threat of contamination in the Region's Threats Inventory Database on adjacent lands (associated with Heroux Devtek Aerospace Product and Parts Manufactural facility at 1665 Highland Road West). As the RSC and associated Acknowledgement Letter from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) have not been submitted as part of a complete application, Regional staff will require a holding provision implemented through the ZBA requiring the submission of the RSC and MECP Acknowledgement Letter to the Region's satisfaction. Alternately, the City's Chief Building Official may provide the Region with written confirmation that an RSC is required under O. Reg 153/04. Required wording for the holding provision is as follows: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a satisfactory Record of Site Condition has been submitted to the Ministry of Conservation and Parks, and that the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgment Letter are provided to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Risk Management & Source Water Protection The subject property located in a Part IV area of the CWA (WHPA). No Section 59 notice submitted with application; circulated to RMO for comment. RMO staff indicate property is in a source protection area where Risk Management Plan or prohibition polices implemented by the Region of Waterloo may apply. A Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is required. Under the 2022 Grand River Source Protection Plan, a Risk Management Plan for salt application may be required for proposed and/or altered surface parking and vehicle driveway areas greater than 200 square metres. Design considerations with respect to salt management that will form the Risk Management Plan include; - Minimizing the transport of meltwater across the parking lots or driveways - Directing downspouts away from paved areas Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 4 of 8 Page 94 of 224 - Locating snow storage areas on impermeable (ie paved) surfaces that drain directly to catch basins Note that the Region does not support any engineered and/or enhanced infiltration of runoff originating from paved surfaces within chloride Issue Contributing Areas. The above noted property is within a chloride Issue Contributing Area. Engineered and/or enhanced infiltration features may include ponds, infiltration galleries, permeable pavers, ditches, swales, oil -grit separators, etc. A Valid Notice of Source Protection under Section 59 of the Clean Water Act has not yet been provided in support of this application. It is our understanding that the applicant is currently working with the Regional Risk Management Official (rmo(a-)-regionofwaterloo.ca) to update an existing Risk Management Plan for the property to reflect the development concept. Provided the Section 59 Notice is issued, staff will have no concern with source protection in relation to this application. Water Services Regional staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing Report provided in support of the application and have no comments or concerns with the servicing proposal. Waste Management The subject lands are located approximately 1 km from the boundary of an active Regional landfill site. Staff have considered land use compatibility in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks' (MECP) Guideline D-4. As part of a future plan of condominium application, Regional staff will require as a condition of draft approval that the following warning clause be included in all offers of purchase and sale, lease and rental agreements, and the condominium declaration: "Due to proximity to the Waterloo Regional Waste Management Centre, odour levels on this property may occasionally cause concern for some individuals." This warning clause shall be secured in a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener or the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Housing Services The following Regional policies and initiatives support the development and maintenance of affordable housing: - Regional Strategic Plan o Strategic Priority 1 is "Homes for All" in the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan. - 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan o Contains an affordable housing target for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in Waterloo Region to be affordable to low and moderate income households. - Building Better Futures Framework Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 5 of 8 Page 95 of 224 o Demonstrates Regional plans to create 2,500 units of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes by 2025. - Region of Waterloo Official Plan o Section 3.A (Range and Mix of Housing) contains land use policies that ensure the provision of a full and diverse range and mix of permanent housing that is safe, affordable, of adequate size, and meets the accessibility requirements of all residents. The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Should this Zoning By-law amendment be approved, staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site, as defined in the Regional Official Plan. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the Regional Official Plan are provided below in the section on affordability. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs and mechanisms to support a defined level of affordability. Affordability For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit, based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan, the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $395,200 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average $740,000 purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2023). For an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $395,200. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit, based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan, the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 6 of 8 Page 96 of 224 A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household $2,040 income for low and moderate income renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the Bachelor: $1,164 average market rent (AMR) in the regional 1 -Bedroom: $1,346 market area 2 -Bedroom: $1,658 3 -Bedroom: $2,039 4+ Bedroom: n/a *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2023) For a rental unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area as shown above. Please do not hesitate to contact Housing Services staff directly at JMaanMiedema(a)regionofwaterloo.ca or phone at 226-753-9593 should you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Fees Please be advised that the Region is in receipt of fees for the ZBA review ($3,000, deposited August 22, 2024) and peer review of the environmental noise study ($5,085, received August 21, 2024). Conclusions & Next Steps Regional staff have no objection to approval of the proposed application, provided the following are addressed: • A Valid Section 59 Notice is provided to the Region. • A holding provision is applied to these lands requiring Regional acceptance of the preliminary noise study and completion of a detailed noise study prior to site plan approval. • A holding provision is applied to these lands requiring submission of a Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement letter to the Region. • Inclusion of a warning clause related to proximity to an active Regional landfill in any future agreements of purchase and sale, lease/rental agreements, and condominium declarations is secured in a registered development agreement as part of a future Planning Act application. Note also that peer review comments in relation to the preliminary stationary noise study submitted in support of this application will be provided under separate cover once received from the third -party peer reviewer. Please be advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19- 037 or any successor thereof. Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 7 of 8 Page 97 of 224 Further, please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at wtowns(a)regionofwaterloo.ca. Yours truly, Will Towns, RPP Senior Planner C. Patterson Planning Consultants Inc, c/o Scott Patterson (Agent) 1000160668 Ontario Corp. c/o Michael Brenner (Owner) Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 8 of 8 Page 98 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Niall Melanson Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 2:08 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Angela Mick; Primmer, Sarah Subject: 60 Trussler Road, ZBA24-019-T-ES - Engineering Clearance Hey Eric Please be advised that Engineering and Kitchener Utilities can provide our clearance for the ZBA application. Thank you. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener niall.melanson@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200x7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 99 of 224 Hey Eric, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comments. Thanks, Trevor Heywood B.Sc.(Env.) Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 ext. 2292 Email: theywoodagrandriver. ca www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media Page 100 of 224 City of Kitchener ZBA comments Application type: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/019/T/ES Project address: 60 Trussler Road Comments of: Transportation Services Commenter's name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 e 7369 Date of comments: August 22, 2024 Comments due: September 5, 2024 As part of a complete Zoning By-law amendment application, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was submitted (May 2024) by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited in support of this application. Transportation Services reviewed the TIS and offer the following comments. Development proposal The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with 64 -unit townhouse development with a total of 73 parking spaces. The development is estimated to generate 28 AM and 34 PM peak hour vehicle trips and the site will be serviced by one full moves access along Trussler Road. The assumed build out for this development is 2027. Intersection analysis The two intersections noted below were reviewed under existing 2024 base year traffic conditions and both intersections are operating within acceptable levels of service and within capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. • Trussler Road at Snyder's Road East (Wilmot Township)/Highland Road West (Regional Road 6) - unsignalized • Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard (Regional Road 70) - roundabout The two intersections noted above were reviewed under 2032 future background traffic conditions and are both operating within acceptable levels of service and within capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard (Regional Road 70) noted that Highview Drive is operating with a LOS E and v/c of 0.71 in the PM peak hour. While delay is noted, there remains excess vehicle capacity for this movement. Trussler Road is operating with a LOS C and v/c of 0.93 in the PM peak hour. The three intersections below were reviewed under 2032 future total traffic conditions and are operating within acceptable levels of service and within capacity during the AM and PM peak hours, A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 101 of 224 except where noted. Future total traffic includes forecasted background traffic plus site development traffic. • Trussler Road at Snyder's Road East (Wilmot Township)/Highland Road West (Regional Road 6) - unsignalized • Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard (Regional Road 70) - roundabout • Trussler Road at site access (NEW) — unsignalized The intersection of Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard noted that Highview Drive which is operating with a LOS E and v/c of 0.76 in the PM peak hour. While delay is noted, there remains excess vehicle capacity for this movement. Trussler Road is operating with a LOS C and v/c of 0.93 in the PM peak hour. The new site access to Trussler Road is forecasted to operate with a LOS B or better and v/c ratios of 0.03 or lower in the AM and PM peak hours. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) analysis There are two Grand River Transit (GRT) routes less than 700m from this development. They include routes: 1 and 77. These routes offer connectivity to a broader transit network throughout the Region of Waterloo and within Kitchener itself. The walkability for pedestrians accessing the site and surrounding area is possible as sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of roadways in the surrounding area. While Trussler Road doesn't have any dedicated cycling facilities, Ira Needles Boulevard and Highland Road West do have cycling facilities available. There is also an off-road trail that connects Trussler Road to Ira Needles Boulevard through Waldau Woods Park. Left turn lane analysis A left turn lane analysis was completed along Trussler Road at the site access, utilizing the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Geometric Design Standards for the 2032 Background and 2032 Total future traffic conditions and it was determined that a left turn lane along Trussler Road is not warranted. Transportation Services supports Paradigms conclusions. AutoTURN swept path analysis The following Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) design vehicle was reviewed for loading/garbage: • Medium Single Unit (MSU) - acceptable Conclusion Based on the analysis within the TIS, Transportation Services supports Paradigms recommendation that the development be approved and that there are no provisions for any off-site transportation network improvements. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 102 of 224 Good morning Eric, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). B) That the developer and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about schools in the area. A sign specifications document can be found at the bottom of the board's planning department web page (https://www.wcdsb.ca/about- us/cs/planningL). C) That the developer shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement /future condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "In orderto limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will nottravel on privatelyowned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus ata congregated bus pick-up point." Jennifer Passy, BES, MCIP, RPP (she/her) Manager of Planning Waterloo Catholic District School Board Phone: 519-578-3677, ext. 2253 Cell: 519-501-5285 Page 103 of 224 City of Kitchener OPA & ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener Application Type: Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comments Of: Urban Design Commenter's Name: Katey Crawford Email: Katey.Crawford@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Date of Comments: September 4th 2024 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑X No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed • Zoning By-law Amendment Application Form • Floor Plans, Building Elevations, and Building Sections • Renderings • Concept Site Plan • Civil Engineering Plans • Noise Study • Urban Design Report • Tree Management Plan 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: There are updates required to the documentation noted below to address urban design concerns with the proposed ZBA application. Site Plan Comments • A 3.9 -meter -wide front yard setback is measured to the corner of the building, not 4.7m as noted on the plan. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 104 of 224 • A revised site layout/approach to bicycle storage is required. Indoor designated bike storage is encouraged to prevent window obstruction from bike lockers and allow for additional landscaping and buffering on site. • Show location of Class B bike parking on the plan. • Landscape medians are required at the end of drive aisles. • 0.3m wide landscape strips between concrete walkways and private patios will not be able to support plant material. Bring sidewalks up to the patio to increase landscape buffers offset north property line. • Provide a 1.5m minimum width landscape buffer along all property lines, (measured at edge of curb) to allow for landscape buffer and tree planting. • Walkways abutting parking stalls require a minimum of 1.8m width. • The proposed ground floor balconies/patios should be a minimum of 11 square meters in size. • 1.8m high wood screen fence is required offset property lines. • Deep well waste storage to be noted on the plan. At grade "earth bin" are unacceptable. Encourage adding a 3rd bin for compost/organic material disposal in addition to garbage and recycling. Built Form Comments • Provide a flat rough structure for all buildings to reduce massing and better integrate the built form into the low-rise neighborhood context. • Show and note colours and materials. Utilize a material and colour palette that is sympathetic to the neighborhood and less cold in appearance. • Utilize masonry along the entire front facade of Building A, facing Trusser to improve articulation and appearance facing the public realm. • Lower level patios are to be removed facing Trussler, as previously requested to allow for landscaping and an improved interface with the public realm. Tree Management Plan Comments • Written permission for removal of or impact to trees in joint ownership along property lines is required. • There are numerous trees off property and in shared ownership which will be impacted where removal would be necessary. Has there been any consideration or efforts to re -design the site to preserve quality vegetation? Given the limited setbacks proposed, it will likely not be possible to replace trees at a 3:1 rate on site. Provide additional enhanced landscape buffer in effort to retain trees off property. Urban Design Report Comments • Provide conceptual details for on-site amenity spaces in the Urban Design Report including commentary and precedent images to guide detailed site design. A play space with play equipment, seating and a shade structure element is required. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 105 of 224 Please include the amenity area calculation in the urban design brief, following the formula provided. (2m2x #units) + (2.5M2 x #bedrooms - #units) = outdoor amenity space. Update report based on comments above. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 106 of 224 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Eric Schneider Senior Planner City of Kitchener Eric.Schneider(@kitchener.ca September 6, 2024 Re: Circulation for Comment - 60 Trussler Road (ZBA) File No.. Municipality: Kitchener Location: 60 Trussler Road Owner/Applicant: 1000160668 Ontario Corp./Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. Dear Eric, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted application that proposes the development of a 64 unit low rise residential/ stacked townhouses. The WRDSB offers the following comments. Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools: • Meadowlane Public School (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6); • Westheights Public School (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and • Forest Heights Collegiate Institute (Grade 9 to Grade 12). Please be advised that student accommodation pressures currently exist at Forest Heights Cl. The WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long -Term Accommodation Plan provides detailed enrolment projections for schools in this review area. Interim student accommodation measures, including portable classrooms, are presently on-site and may be required until an alternative accommodation solution is in place. Additionally, the WRDSB may conduct a boundary review or designate this property as a "Development Area" and assign it to Holding Schools before occupancy or sales. Student Transportation The WRDSB supports active transportation, and we ask that pedestrians be considered in the review of all development applications to ensure the enhancement of safety and connectivity. WRDSB staff are interested in engaging in a conversation with the city, and applicant to review the optimization of pedestrian access to public transit, and municipal sidewalks so students may access school bus pick-up points. Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel privately owned or maintained rights-of-way to pick-up/drop-off students. Transported students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. STSWR may have additional comments about student pick-up point(s) placement on municipal rights-of-way. WRDSB Draft Conditions Concerning any future declaration or agreement, the WRDSB requests the following inclusions in the conditions of Draft Approval: 1. That the Owner/Developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: Page 107 of 224 a. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." a. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email olanningnwrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. " "In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point" 2. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the Property that provides: a. "All agreements of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same." "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planning(a)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. " ,In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (S TS WR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point" 3. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which include the above statements (conditions 2 a. i., ii., and iii.). 4. That the Owner/Developer supply, erect and maintain a sign (at the Owner/Developer's expense and according to the WRDSB's specifications), near or affixed to the development sign, advising prospective residents about schools in the area and that prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a photo of the sign for review and approval of the WRDSB. 5. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above condition(s) has/have been satisfied. Page 108 of 224 Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the WRDSB's Education Development Charges By-law, 2021 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Education Development Charges for these developments prior to issuance of a building permit. The WRDSB requests to be circulated on any subsequent submissions on the subject lands and reserves the right to comment further on this application. If you have any questions about the comments provided, don't hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Sarah West Senior Planner Waterloo Region District School Board sarah westCa.wrdsb.ca 519 570 0003 x4439 cc: L. Agar, WRDSB Page 109 of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form Address: 60 Trussler Road Owner: 1000160668 Ontario Corp. Application: Zoning By-law Amendment #ZBA24/019/T/ES Comments Of: Park Planning Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Aug 12 2024 Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of a Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning from 'Low Rise Residential One Zone (RES -1)' to 'Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES - 5)' is requested to facilitate the use of multiple dwelling. A site-specific provision is also being sought for side yard setback, parking reduction of one parking space, and increase in building height. • Zoning By-law Amendment Application Form • Floor Plans, Building Elevations, and Building Sections • Renderings • Concept Site Plan • Planning Opinion Report • Civil Engineering Plans • Noise Study • Urban Design Report • Tree Management Plan Site Specific Comments & Issues: There are minor updates required to the documentation noted below to address Park Planning's concerns with the proposed ZBA application. Park Planning can provide conditional support to the application subject to receiving satisfactory updates to the documentation noted. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this time. Urban Design Brief— Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. dated June 2024 As noted in Park Planning's Presubmission comments, the site is within the Forest Heights Planning Community and while this community has been identified as being well served overall with active neighbourhood park space the subject site is isolated from and beyond typical walkshed distances to existing neighbourhood park facilities. The provision of robust onsite recreational amenity space will be important for future residents of the proposed development and the required Urban Design Brief should provide details for a robust on-site outdoor amenity space with good solar access and protection from wind. This amenity space will be required as part of the site plan design and should include seating and A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community P fi 6 of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form play equipment for residents of all ages and abilities. The UDB should provide conceptual details for on- site amenity spaces including commentary and precedent images to guide detailed site design through the site plan application. A revised Urban Design Brief is required. Proposed Site Plan on City template, architectural renderings and preliminary floor plans — Reinders + Law Ltd. Based on the proposed preliminary site plan, architectural renderings and preliminary floor plans, the stacked secure bicycle storage units will obstruct windows. A revised site layout/approach to bicycle storage is required. 19 0 A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community O 0I of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form - aC �C � 7C coq. sloEwAL •... rY.. 4. ,s . o L4YOFC PE AREA 6.1 5-5 I YIP, T _ 2,6 TYP. 6.7 DRIVE AISLE Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan • City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 • City of Kitchener Development Manual • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication requirements will be deferred at the Zoning By-law Amendment application and assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class and density approved through the ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Parkland A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community 0 Pfl I of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form dedication will be taken as cash -in -lieu of land according to the Planning Act, Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 in effect. If Site Plan Approval in Principle/Conditional Approval is issued within five (5) years of Nov 05, 2021, a credit for the demolished residential unit will be applied. An estimate is provided using the approved land valuation of $3,830,000/ha and a dedication rate of 1ha/1000 units; a maximum dedication of either land or CIL of 10% and a capped rate of $11,862/unit. The estimated cash -in -lieu park dedication for the proposed 0.6127 ha site with 64 proposed units (possible credit for demolition of 1 units if AIP by Nov 05 2026) is $234,664 Calculation: 63 units/1000units x $3,830,000/ha = $241,290 (alternate rate Bylaw 2022-101) 0.6127ha x 0.05 x $3,830,000/ha = $117,332 (5% rate Bylaw 2022-101) 0.6127ha x $3,830,000/ha x 0.1= $234,664 (More Homes Built Faster Act 10% cap) A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community PW4'Pfl i of 224 Eric Schneider From: Dave Thomas , Sent: Monday, September ib, Lu,L-t u.JJ mjvi To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bil loannidis Subject: Opposition to Proposed High -Density Development at 60 Trussler Road Some people who received this message don't often et email from n why this is important 'i P P g g Dear Bit loannidis/City Council and Eric Schneider/Planning Department, We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed high-density 64 -unit stacked townhouse development at 60 Trussler Road, adjacent to our property at As long-term residents of this neighborhood, having lived here for over 25 years, we deeply value the character and tranquility of our low-density, single-family residential area. This proposed development threatens to significantly alter the nature of our community and negatively impact both our property and the surrounding area. Privacy and Overlook Issues: The proposed 3 -story development would severely compromise the privacy of our backyard. The height and density of the new buildings are likely to overlook our property, which is a significant concern. Additionally, the potential for increased lighting from the development could further invade our privacy and diminish our comfort. Noise and Traffic Concerns: The proposal includes 73 parking spaces for 64 units, which seems insufficient given that many families may own multiple vehicles. Overflow parking onto Cora Drive, where street parking is already Limited, could pose safety risks and further inconvenience residents. Increased traffic from the development is also likely to lead to more safety concerns and congestion in our area. Impact on Environment and Community: We are particularly concerned about the removal of mature trees that currently serve as a buffer from noise originating from the factory on Highland Road. The loss of these trees would not only increase noise levels but also diminish the visual and environmental quality of the neighborhood. The current green space, which contributes to the area's charm, will be replaced by buildings and a parking lot. Fencing and Buffering: To mitigate the impact on privacy and noise, we request the inclusion of adequate fencing, ideally 8 feet tall. This measure is crucial for maintaining the quality of life for current residents. Infrastructure and Services: The infrastructure was previously deemed adequate for the proposed five houses, and we are unaware of any updates to accommodate the demands of 64 units. We are concerned about whether current services and infrastructure can support such a large-scale development. Financial Considerations: It is important to note that the city received $14 million from the province for new housing initiatives, with the program active for three years. We are concerned that financial incentives may be influencing the decision to approve this development without fully considering its impact on current residents and the neighborhood. We feel this development will have a significant negative impact on the value of properties in the area. In conclusion, we believe that the proposed development is incompatible with the character of our low-density neighborhood and will have considerable negative effects on our community. We urge you to reconsider the proposal and take these concerns into account. Page 114 of 224 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, David Thomas MaryJane Thomas Page 115 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Susan Benner Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 8:34 AM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: Notice of decision, 60 Trussler Road [Some people who received this message don't often get email from - earn why this is important at https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] Hello Bil and Eric. Thank you for the opportunity to get involved in the zoom discussion around the development at 60 Trussler Road. I would like to be notified of the council decision as offered in Step 4 of the planning process. Regards Susan Benner Sent from my iPad Page 116 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:51 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Trussler rd development 11; 11 You don't often get email from vhv this is important Hi Eric. I saw some of the meeting last night on this. Where artificial lighting is concerned, is it possible to add a request that the lights, in addition to full cut off directed down, that they at max are 3000k ( in line with city street lights) and preferably 2200k -2700k for best environmental and human health aspects. I'd also like to see, should this development move forward, that the parking lot lights be set on a dimmable schedule for overnight control, 11pm to 5am. In addition to the above I'd like to also see the use of shielding to prevent back and side light throw that may create light trespass problems for others. I believe you saw my reply to Bil as well? Best, Shawn Nielsen Page 117 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sarah Knechtel Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 11:54 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Trussler Rd. Housing Complex You don't often get email from rn why this is important I sat in on the meeting last night and didn't hear an answer to the sanitation question. How has that issued been resolved? I also heard the request of changing it to a 2 story town house with the message being they already reduced it. They reduced it because they don't have enough parking spaces to meet the bi-law, so they definitely didn't meet it with their first plan. Climate Change! It is all I hear about federally and world wide. "The ice caps are melting .... we need to reduce carbon footprints ...... and yet the enormous trees that have sat in the lot behind my house are all coming down? Have there been environmental considerations taken into account? Fumes from 63 cars starting that will go directly into the backyard of all the houses that live on Cora. I am opposed to this housing complex for all the reasons I've listed and the lack of privacy my family will now have because of a 3 story complex that looks directly into my yard. I didn't buy this house 20 years ago with the knowledge of the zoning laws being changed. That affects the value of my house, my privacy, my health and wellbeing. Will I be compensated for that? I should be! I am tired of hearing from the province that we have a housing crisis. We have a population crisis! Sarah Knechtel Page 118 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Zabrina Wilson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 8:08 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Re: 60 Trussler Rd [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Hi Eric You just said in the meeting that no environmental study needs to be done. You said to me that you do not believe any blanding's turtles are here. You didn't assure me of that. You said you would forward my request. In the meeting it sounds like you said nothing will be done. I'm pretty sure there has been no assessment of the area done. Therefore you cannot say that there are no turtles in the area. We have many ponds/swamps in this area. We have seen this turtle multiple times. I will bring this to the ministry of environment as well. They have this turtle I" t d is a as a protected animal. Thank you Zabrina Wilson Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 12, 2024, at 5:07 PM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Hi Zabrina, thank you for your email. > I do not believe any blandings turtles have been identified on the subject lands, but when they are, the city would require exclusionary fencing to keep them out of the construction activity throughout development. > I will forward your request to our Environmental Planning staff in regards to this matter. > Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP > Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener > (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca > -----Original Message----- * From: Zabrina Wilson > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:47 PM > To: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca>; Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> > Subject: 60 Trussler Rd Page 119 of 224 Eric Schneider From: janette graf-king Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 6:54 PM To: David Andrews Cc: Eric Schneider, biLioannidis@kitchener.ca Subject: Re: Comments on Proposed Stacked Townhouse Development Here are my questions for tonight in case I cant get into the meeting. To:Eric Schneider Thu 9/12/2024 6:51 PM 1. How are you going to address the extra traffic from 73 vehicles, the delivery vehicles for those units and the family and friends visitor parking? Where will they park and what happens to trussler Rd.? 2. How are you going to address the lack of water penetration into the ground when you paved and built over most of the 1.5 acre site? And what about the water protection that is supposed to be happening in this area with signs even posted for that? 3. Why are there no rights to the existing residence on Cora that back onto this site or the surrounding area to allow this type of overcrowding three stories high and building right to the edge of the property? 4. Why is the city allowing variances on the height and tot set back restrictions on top of the zone change? 5. What happens to public transit for these homes? Does this mean that on top of all the traffic deliveries and visitors we will be getting buses on Trussler? 6. Will the city be reducing all our tax dollars due to the devaluing of our of our homes? Which this will do? 7. Will the city be increasing the number of police and the presence in this area to accommodate the increase in crime but moreover the neighbourhood disputes that are going to start to happen? A great example is what happened in Stratford! 8. Will the city consider keeping the height at two stories reducing the number of units And building normal 2 story townhomes? Hence what we would have is less cars more green space, Neighbors less volume of people to fight with neighbors and would help in keeping the neighborhood a little more like it is now? 9. What and who is this developer that they would be able to purchase a property without proper zoning? Page 120 of 224 10. Are there any city councilors, family members or friends that are part of this development? 11. Why does the city not send this developer down to Kitchener South area where there is lots and lots of lands that could be developed into a neighborhood that would be new and everybody would know what they're buying into? 12. Where is the green space and area for the kids and animals for this property? 13. How does the city think it's OK to build right up to the sidewalk and have a 20 foot wide driveway coming in off of trussler when there's traffic coming off highland getting to the Expressway? 14. Where is all the snow going in the winter for the 73 vehicle parking lot? 15. Why are our councillors and the mayor not protecting and supporting the residents of their city both none paying and tax paying tax dollars? Why is the developer rights supersede all of the residents in this whole corner? 16. Does the city of Kitchener and the mayor think this is a smart move to allow this to happen to a beautiful existing neighborhood? 17. Does council and the mayor see Kitchener moving to be a beautiful town or being destroyed by all this overcrowding in filling? 18. My last question is does City Council know that Waterloo region is ranked the second highest crime rate in Ontario? janette graf-king M Reply 0 Fo rwa rd Respectfully, Janette Lynn Graf -King Sales Representative Re/Max Real Estate Centre (licensed since April 1987) Page 121 of 224 Eric Schneider From: M. D. Menchenton Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:48 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Re: Proposed development at 60 Trussler Road You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important My apologies, here is our letter again. Mari & Bryan Menchenton September 12, 2024 Mr. Eric Schneider, We just found out recently that a new stacked townhouse development is proposed for our neighbourhood. This is on back of Cora Drive, off Trussler Road in Kitchener. We moved to this neighbourhood about eight years ago. We found a location that is quiet and has little traffic going through our neighbourhood. It's a quiet place with reasonable people density. This is our retirement home. We moved in knowing that there would be no more new homes being built in our area that would change the dynamics of our living condition. Now we're faced with the possibility of our quiet neighbourhood being overpopulated by the addition of 64 dwelling units on such a small piece of property. If it was going to be several single -dwelling homes it would be much more in keeping with the neighbourhood and would not add significant population to our quiet community. Having been in the construction business myself, I am all for building more homes, but not at the expense of the neighbouring community. It seems to me that "dollars" are the main reason for this development and not taking into consideration how building a densely populated area will affect the existing neighbourhood. But I guess that is where you come in. You are not influenced by a developer trying to make as much money as he can on a piece of property. You are concerned about the big picture of how this will impact the neighbourhood around that development. Another concern is Waldau Woods, the beautiful, protected green space behind our homes. Quite a number of neighbours already walk through there, often with dogs, and most care enough about the neighbourhood to clean up after their pets. But if many more dogs were added, lots more people, and a trail of food garbage, the space would not stay enjoyable for long. A few young people meet up in there and they can get rowdy. It would be the only place that the younger generation has to go to around here, so it could get intimidating for the rest of us who walk there regularly, if many more were added. We'd likely be forced to stop using the trail. Page 122 of 224 We believe you will make the right decision and the best decision for our neighbourhood. And we believe the best decision is either to cancel this new development or scale it down to single-family homes. I'm sure the developer will make a reasonable profit building single-family homes and it will be a win-win for all of us. Let's find a middle ground for all of us so that everyone is satisfied with the outcome Thank you for your consideration in this matter and we look forward to seeing you at the virtual Zoom meeting. Sincerely, Bryan and Marj Menchenton From: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Sent: September 12, 2024 9:44 AM To:'M. D. Menchenton' Subject: RE: Proposed development in our neighbourhood I don't believe I received that from Bryan, can you resend possibly? Thanks, Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneiderQkitchener.ca L,i;,.� � � � E + @ + '" From: M. D. Menchentor, Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 4:41 PM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: Proposed development in our neighbourhood You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello Mr. Schneider, Earlier, my husband Bryan Menchenton sent you our feedback on the proposed development of stacked townhouses in our area of Kitchener. I'm not certain if he had the correct address. This was for the property at 60 Trussler Road in Kitchener. 2 Page 123 of 224 Thank you for considering our concerns. Marj Menchenton Page 124 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Zabrina Wilson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:47 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Rd [Some people who received this message don't often get email frorr Learn why this is important at https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Hello I have just realized that my email is late. I apologize but still need to ask my question about the construction that might take place. I currently live at right on the corner of Cora and Trussler. Although I am completely against this construction, my question has to do with something else. How does the city plan to protect the Blanding's turtles that are in this area? I believe they are living at a pond down behind my house. I have encountered them a few times going across Trussler Rd directly in front of this vacant lot. They are an endangered species and must be protected!! With all this construction that could be happening as well as the added traffic, I fear that we will lose the small population that is living here. Looking forward to your response! Zabrina Wilson Sent from my iPhone Page 125 of 224 Eric Schneider From: David Andrews > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:49 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bil loannidis Subject: Re: Proposed Development- 60 Trussler Road [You don't often get email from i. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Thank you Eric. I assume the capacity assessment is being based on theoretical pipe capacity not specific conditions in the subsystem. Regards, Dave. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 12, 2024, at 3:39 PM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Hi David, > I believe Councillor loannidis has answered the first question. > In regards to the second question, the servicing capacity reports provided by the applicant are being reviewed currently by our Engineering and Stormwater Utilities Staff. They have confirmed that sanitary flow capacity is available, they are still reviewing the water flow. > Regards, > Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP > Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener > (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca > -----Original Message----- * From: David Andrews > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 11:03 AM > To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> > Cc: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> > Subject: Proposed Development- 60 Trussler Road > [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] E Page 126 of 224 > Hi Eric, > To ensure transparency and avoid misinformation, could you please confirm that the proponents f development do not include any City Staff, Elected Officials or their families. > or the proposed > Would you also be able to confirm whether City staff have reviewed and approved the servicin re proposed development based on current area infrastructure conditions. g quirements for the > Regards, > David Andrews > Sent from my iPhone Page 127 of 224 Eric Schneider From: STEVE RUDAK Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 1:48 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Neighbourhood Meeting Sept 12 Attachments: Neighbourhood Meet Questions for Sept 12 2024.docx You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello Eric Here are the five items that we discussed last week and then some additional questions. I hope you are able to address these during the neighbourhood meeting for a good understanding. Thank you, Steve Page 128 of 224 1. Sidewalk, Bike lane transportation and shopping Highland needs to be completed with sidewalk and a bike lane on at least on one (1) side. Until now there has been no need, however, this development and another on Highland, will have many residents utilizing this route and currently it is nothing less than dangerous! According to city planning sidewalk work is not part of the ten (10) year plan for sidewalks. Will the city build sidewalks and bike lanes on Highland now, to mirror that which was completed in 2023 on Highland from Ira Needles to Westheights? 2. PlayMround. What is in it for the children? What is their activity plan outside their homes? 3. Variance. is asking the city to agree to allow What added value is therefor the city, to entertain a proposal for new residents to be pushed in closer to each other? Why does the city bring this item to its residents? is there no criteria to city planning that is important? 4. Storm system in If there are sewer backup issues, the city will immediately point to climate change to relieve themselves of any responsibility of flooding due to overload of existing systems. after in lust allowed it to be built S. Parking. ine developer is asking the city to enhancements. The developer is mal interested in buying in in Page 129 of 224 ne aeveiopment needs 96 spaces minimum just to meet 2014 statistics for On Sept 10 at 6 pm, there were 121 cars parked on Cora and Roach, does not include cars in closed garages, a motorcycle, a trailer. On Sept 11 at 12 noon, there were 83 cars parked on Cora and Roach, does not include cars in closed garages. On Sept 12 at 1 pm, there were 89 cars parked on Cora and Roach, does not include cars in closed garages. The developer should observe demographic and other relevant statistics and incorporate in its proposal to help expedite approvals. Additional questions: 6. What is the square footage of the units and number of bedrooms? 7. Is garbage collection/removal to be on city property or on the development property? 8. Will the parking be ready for electric charging? 9. What is in it for the existing residents? Please send notice of decision to me. Thank you, Page 130 of 224 Is it a requirement for the developer to ensure there are enough spaces for the quantity of units? Is it wise for a developer to look at statistics and to propose build adequate to statistics that have the potential to impact development decisions? The area between Ira Needles and West Heights is where a person was found deceased from a hit and run incident approximately 4 years ago? There were no sidewalks but there was construction of the townhouses and the large apartment which was build WAY TOO CLOSE TO THE ROUNDABOUT! The roundabout at Highland and Ira Needles is an aggressive traffic circle, for driving let alone for pedestrian and bike traffic. The turn in to the shoppers drug also and aggressive place !!! Zoning Change Page 131 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 6:28 PM To: Bil loannidis Cc: Berry Vrbanovic; Anita Zapletan Csonti; Eric Schneider Subject: Re: 60 Trussler townhouse development Some people who received this message don't often get email from shawnknielsen@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Thanks Bil. Is this development something that could be stopped or are we in a situation do you feel of only being able to scale it back? It doesn't fit into the neighborhood. It's overly aggressive and jammed into a small narrow piece of land, sandwiched between a factor parking lot and other property owners backyards. Can the existing infrastructure really handle this development? It's a decades old neighborhood with decades old infrastructure. There's also many more concerns by people invested in our neighborhood. Shawn Nielsen On Sep 11, 2024, at 6:09 p.m., Bil loannidis <bil.ioannidis@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Shawn, Thank you for your email. To answer your question I am not a fan of the development. Regards, Bil loannidis City of Kitchener Councillor Ward 7 Corporate Contact Centre 519-741-2345 info@Kitchener.ca From: Shawn Nielsen > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, LUL4 /:LU AM To: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca>; Berry Vrbanovic <berry.vrbanovic@kitchener.ca> Subject: Fwd: 60 Trussler townhouse development Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 8 Page 132 of 224 Bil - With the public meeting for this set for tomorrow I am expecting a reply to my question posed to you two days ago; which is more than enough time for you to reply. As councilor for my ward 7, please have the courtesy to answer the question. Shawn Nielsen -------- Forwarded Message-------- Subject:60 Trussler townhouse development Date:Mon, 9 Sep 2024 12:37:31-0400 From:Shawn Nielsen To:bil.ioannidis@kitchener.ca <Dii.ioannidis(wwKitchener.ca> Bil - are you for or against this overly aggressive townhouse development? It would have a negative effect on my neighbourhood and property. Shawn Nielsen Page 133 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Violet Balzer Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 5:31 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Re: Opposition to Development at 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Eric, Thanks for acknowledging my letter of opposition to 60 Trussler Road. Is it still possible for me to be a delegate at the meeting tomorrow? I just found out that this option is available. Sorry for the late request. Violet Balzer On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 10:43:01 a.m. EDT, Eric Schneider <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Violet, Thanks for providing comments for this development application. I can confirm your comments have been received and will be included in the public record. understand you have concerns about the proposed intensification of this site, as it relates to compatibility, height, green space, and traffic. Have you had a chance to review the studies and reports that were provided by the applicant? They can be accessed at kitchener.ca/planningapplications Third Party Appeals (appeals from residents) are no longer allowed in Ontario after the provincial government passed Bill 185 on June 6 of this year. Please let me know if you would like to discuss the application over the phone before the neighbourhood meeting on Thursday. My phone number is listed below. Regards, io Page 134 of 224 Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneidergkitchener.ca From: Violet Balzer Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 10:22 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca Subject: Opposition to Development at 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener You don't often get email from earn why this is important Good Day Eric, We live on Trussler Road and wish to express our STRONG opposition to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. Originally, this property was a single home lot, which was sold and a reasonable proposal was planned to subdivide it into 5 executive lots. However, the current proposal for 64 dwelling units with 73 parking spaces is excessive and incompatible with our neighborhood. A development of that size was never planned for this area and approval of such overcrowding on this lot would be negligent abuse of maintaining the faith in our Mayor and Councilors to consider why our bylaws have been written and passed as they currently stand. We request that the City halt this application and restrict any future application to remain within all current bylaws / easements and consider the existing communities where such applications are entertained Bylaw enforcements are for everyone and cannot be changed to pad the pockets of developers We are shocked that this proposal was allowed to get this far in the planning stages While we understand some development is necessary, it should enhance, not overwhelm, the area. We firmly oppose increasing the building height to 11.6 meters and urge that any new structure be restricted to 2 stories. Additionally, reducing the side yard setbacks and reducing / removing or turning green space into parking lots is unacceptable. Our community needs areas for recreation, tranquility, and a sense of home. 11 Page 135 of 224 Furthermore, Trussler Road already faces traffic issues, and adding more density without addressing these problems needs to be addressed. We were promised traffic calming measures this year, and this proposal seems to disregard that commitment. Also, to date, no traffic calming measures have been put in place. If you have any further information regarding this application or how to best understand our appeal rights we would like to receive it prior to the ZOOM meeting so that we are prepared. Thank you for considering our concerns. Best regards, Violet & David Balzer 12 Page 136 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Mary Bland Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 12:35 PM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: Re: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good Afternoon, Eric & Bill, Thank you so much for your email, we appreciate the clarification on the zoning application. We also appreciate all the detailed information on how the new development process works that Bill kindly sent in an earlier email, Unfortunately, we cannot attend the meeting due to a prior engagement but thank you for recording our concerns. After reading Bill's email we have a clearer understanding of the obstacles that you face with the OLT and appreciate the constant battles you must face with the developers. While the OLT are legally doing theirjob it certainly doesn't feel like they ethically look at the whole picture. It is easy for people to constantly approve developments when it doesn't personally impact them. Thank you for trying to change this application and if you can get the applicant to listen to our concerns and find a solution that works for everyone that would be great. Warmest regards, Phil and Mary Bland Get Outlook for iOS From: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 12:15 PM To: Mary Bland it loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. Hi Mary, Thanks for providing comments for this development application. I can confirm your comments have been received and will be included in the public record. The application to build 5 detached homes on the site was a "Vacant Land Condominium". That proposal did not require a Zoning By-law Amendment, like this application, as the use of detached homes is currently permitted under the RES -1 zone. This application is for Zoning By-law Amendment, which is a different type of development application. I understand you have concerns related to noise, traffic, parking, and impact to amenities. Let me know if you would like to discuss further, my phone number is listed below. We are also hosting an online Zoom meeting on Thursday if you wish to attend. Regards, 13 Page 137 of 224 Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneiderakitchener ca From: Mary Bland > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:35 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>; Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. t, ,Some people who received this message don't often get email from i. Learn why this is important Good Morning Councilor, loannidis and Mr. Schneider I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express our concerns about a proposed development notice for 64 stacked units at the top of Trussler road in Kitchener. The site was once a single-family home, the land was sold and a proposed development of 5 luxury bungalows was then posted on the land which was a good fit for the community. Since then, we have now gone to the 64 town houses. We are not councilors or planners so have no concept of how the zoning laws work but how can something be rezoned to a completely different project. This is a small low-density community and to build 64 town houses on this location will impact this small community immensely. This development will overlook neighbour's properties, reducing the privacy for the families who spend time with their young children in a quiet environment. The potential noise levels are a serious concern for all the properties that will back onto the proposed development. Also, with this development comes the issue of traffic which as I am sure you are both aware is major problem everywhere. With this new residence comes an estimated 64 -128 cars which then causes more high-volume traffic, concerns for road safety, increased noise. Will the extra cars orvisitors park on the small number of streets we have where the local children play? We could talk about the impact on the schools and area amenities as well as many other issues but I am sure you are fully aware of these potential problems. Communities, friends and families talk and the new developments are a hot topic of conversation which is more negative than positive. The general consensus is that this email is a complete waste of time as the public are not being heard. We hope to prove them wrong and start to have a little faith in the City of Kitchener decision makers. To conclude we are strongly opposing this development and hope that you can find a different alternative to the town houses. Best Regards 14 Page 138 of 224 Phil & Mary Bland 15 Page 139 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from Eric, DARREN ALI > Tuesday, September 10, 2024 5:37 PM Eric Schneider Re: 60 Trussler road n. Learn why this is important I have looked through what you have here and obviously I am not urban planner or am I am engineer that would be able to contest anything I see. So yes, I would expect you would have a plan but if you know the area this is proposed in you would see that the space is not that available for more lanes ect? Now are you also going let everyone know that the towers have also been approved by the land tribunal on highland closest to Trussler? For the life of me I cannot fathom how it is all going to work especially since we border Wilmot township. Way to many people crammed into the corner of Kitchener..... Darren Ali Sent from Outlook for Android From: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 10:51:53 AM To:'DARREN ALI' Cc: Bil Ioannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 60 Trussler road Hi Darren, Thanks for providing comments for this development application. I can confirm your comments have been received and will be included in the public record. In regards to current infrastructure, have you had a chance to review the studies and reports that were provided by the applicant? They can be accessed at kitchener.ca/planningapplications . There are civil engineering plans and studies that speak to the projected and available servicing capacities for sanitary servicing, water flow, and storm servicing. There is also a Transportation Impact Study that speaks to the current and projected traffic. If you would like to discuss further, please give me a call at my extension listed below. Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider C&k-itchener.ca 000tmn 0 0000 From: DARREN ALI Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 11:52 AM 16 Page 140 of 224 To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: 60 Trussler road Some people who received this message don't often get email from darrenali@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important Gentlemen, We are residents of this small three street community and have been told of a proposal to double our community with stacked housing on Trussler road. I would like it to be know that we whole heartedly disagree with the size of this proposed development. With the incredible building going on at the corners of Ira needles Blvd and Highland Road it has become increasingly evident that the current infrastructure can't handle even the amount of people and vehicles that are now living in those new buildings not to mention the eventual completion of even more currently under construction now. If you agree to the number of units that are proposed you will only be adding to a litany of problems with current congestion that has already been created by your past approvals. Gentlemen, simply put it is too much .... too fast with the current infrastructure not able to handle the number of residents you are being asked to allow into that small area. Please think this through and I welcome you to come out to the area and look at this proposed site and the impact it will also have on the home owners on Cora dr. Thanks for listening, Darren Ali Sent from Outlook for Android 17 Page 141 of 224 Eric Schneider From: janette graf-king _ > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 12:52 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: RE: i am opposed to the zone change for 60 Trussler road, kitchener -- your info is also misleading You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I have tons.. It was already zezoned to 5 lots why Rezoning? Why are they allowed to increase height of building that effects all the neighboring properties? Why do all the residents in this area have no say? How can this happen in a quiet alcove when they have already redeveloped dozens and dozens of units on Highland where they are prepared for the increased traffic? Why does our zoning not matter any more? How can they destroy our city with over developing existing residential neighborhoods that are not zoned for this type of housing? We are not happy in this neighborhood as it has already been overdeveloped around us and now your destroying all the neighborhoods. Do we not have some rights as well???? This is crazinesslll l l On Sept 10, 2024 12:01 p.m., Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Janette, thanks for calling me last week. Let me know if you have any other questions. Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneidernkitchener.ca From: janette graf-king Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 3:41 PM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: i am opposed to the zone change for 60 Trussler road, kitchener -- your info is also misleading 18 Page 142 of 224 You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Your information on the internet is incorrect on top off all the other things about this rezoning. Please contact me regarding this at The City of Kitchener has received an application for a vacant land condominium consisting of 5 residential units, and common element areas. An internal drive aisle, walkway, and landscaped areas will make up the common elements. In keeping with physical distancing measures recommended by Public Health due to COVID-19, an electronic public meeting will be held by the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee, a Committee of Council which deals with planning matters, on: Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. (live -stream video available at kitchener.ca/watchnow) If you wish to make written and/or verbal comments either in support of, or in opposition to, the above noted proposal you may register as a delegation at kitchener.ca/delegations or by contacting Legislated Services at 519-741-2200 ext. 2203 by no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 13, 2021. A confirmation email and instructions for participating in the meeting electronically with be provided once your registration is received. If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of the City of Kitchener to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener prior to approval/refusal of this proposal, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by contacting the staff person noted below or by viewing the report contained in the meeting agenda (posted 10 days before the meeting at www.kitchener.ca - click on the date in the Calendar of Events and select the appropriate committee). Eric Schneider, Planner- 519-741-2200 x7843 (TTY: 1-866-969-9994); eric.schneiderC&kitchener.ca September 13th is a f r i d a y??????????????????? Respectfully, Janette Lynn Graf -King Sales Representative Re/Max Real Estate Centre (licensed since April 1987) 19 Page 143 of 224 Member of Life Time Achievement Club Hall of Fame Club Platinum Club We are never to busy for your referrals which are greatly appreciated! zo Page 144 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: You don't often get email from Thank you Eric, Lisa Thompson Tuesday, September 10, 2024 11:47 AM Eric Schneider Bil loannidis Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road Learn why this is important I appreciate your confirmation, and the answers to some of my questions. I have no further questions at this time. I will be attending the call on Thursday, but am not optimistic that we have much hope in fighting this development, as proposed. Lisa On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 11:20:53 a.m. EDT, Eric Schneider <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Lisa, Thanks for providing comments for this development application. I can confirm your comments have been received and will be included in the public record. I understand you have concerns with the proposed development, as laid out in your letter. To answer your question about Row Houses, no, the applicant did not consider this building typology when they submitted plans to the City for review. Row houses and stacked townhouses are both under the RES -5 zone so there would be no difference in zone category change request. 3 storeys is the maximum height in all Low Rise zones in the city (RES -1 to RES -5). Therefore, 3 storeys is already permitted on the lands if they were detached dwellings, like the Vacant Land Condo that was approved in 2021 for 5 detached homes. Let me know if you would like to discuss further on the phone. 21 Page 145 of 224 megarus, Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneiderkkitchener.ca �014F► .' From: Lisa Thompson �a> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:15 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road You don't often get email from _ Learn why this is important Good morning Eric, Please see the attached document pertaining to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. I will be participating on the September 12th Zoom Meeting. Please note that I am requesting a notice of decision. Lisa Thompson 22 Page 146 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Mary Bland Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 10:55 AM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Cc: Anita Zapletan Csonti Subject: Re: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. Some people who received this message don't often get email from mbland@uwaterloo.ca. Learn why this is important Good Morning Bill, Thank you so much for responding to my email, we really do appreciate it. The virtual meeting is on the 12th which unfortunately we are unable to attend which is why I emailed you and Mr Schneider. I will wait until we hear about the outcome of the meeting before pursuing this further. I am hopeful that the meeting will bring something positive for our small community. Warmest Regards Phil & Mary Bland Get Outlook for iOS From: Bil loannidis Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 10:49:52 AM To: Mary Bland . ; Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Anita Zapletan Csonti <Anita.ZapletanCsonti@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. Good day Mary and Phil. Thank you for your email and valid concerns. I would be more than happy to discuss your concerns 519-590-5398. Regards, Bil loannidis Councillor Ward 7 City of Kitchener From: Mary Bland Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:35:06 a.m. To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>; Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Good Morning Councilor, loannidis and Mr. Schneider 23 Page 147 of 224 I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express our concerns about a proposed development notice for 64 stacked units at the top of Trussler road in Kitchener. The site was once a single-family home, the land was sold and a proposed development of 5 luxury bungalows was then posted on the land which was a good fit for the community. Since then, we have now gone to the 64 town houses. We are not councilors or planners so have no concept of how the zoning laws work but how can something be rezoned to a completely different project. This is a small low-density community and to build 64 town houses on this location will impact this small community immensely. This development will overlook neighbour's properties, reducing the privacy for the families who spend time with theiryoung children in a quiet environment. The potential noise levels are a serious concern for all the properties that will back onto the proposed development. Also, with this development comes the issue of traffic which as I am sure you are both aware is major problem everywhere. With this new residence comes an estimated 64 -128 cars which then causes more high-volume traffic, concerns for road safety, increased noise. Will the extra cars or visitors park on the small number of streets we have where the local children play? We could talk about the impact on the schools and area amenities as well as many other issues but I am sure you are fully aware of these potential problems. Communities, friends and families talk and the new developments are a hot topic of conversation which is more negative than positive. The general consensus is that this email is a complete waste of time as the public are not being heard. We hope to prove them wrong and start to have a little faith in the City of Kitchener decision makers. To conclude we are strongly opposing this development and hope that you can find a different alternative to the town houses. Best Regards Phil & Mary Bland 24 Page 148 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: You don't often get email from Dear Eric, Trish Royle < Thursday, September 5, 2U24 y:L.S f'IVl Eric Schneider Learn why this is important I feel that this townhouse complex that is possibly going to be built on Trussler is a horrible idea. It will increase traffic in the area. There will not be enough parking and I can see visitors to the townhouse complex using Cora to park, not leaving enough parking for visitors on Cora. The backyard privacy for the houses on Cora wil be non existent and it will lower the value of their homes. Do not have enough schools in the area and kids are getting bused already. No infrastructure to support area, and the sewer and storm drains are older and maybe more cost to the taxpayers. Why would you want to build a townhouse complex beside a factory. Stop ruining our city ), Page 149 of 224 Eric Schneider From: June Gemmell Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 6:15 PM To: Eric Schneider, Bil loannidis Subject: 60 Trussler Road - Proposed Development Some people who received this message don't often get email fron Learn why this is important Dear Sirs, This is in response to notice of the proposed development above. We reside at 30 Cora Drive, our property backing onto this proposed development. Below is a list of our grave concerns for ourselves and our entire neighborhood of single family dwellings: 1. Row of pine trees along fenceline must remain for privacy, communal lighting and sun blockage. 2. In total disagreement with proposed increased building height. These units would be towering above homes and backyards down entire Cora Drive. 3. Proposed 64 dwelling units with only 73 parking spaces is unrealistic, considering most households own at least 2 vehicles. Concern is parking will dramatically increase along Cora Drive and Trussler Road in the spring/summer months. And where will additional/overload parking be provided in winter? 4. Communal lighting and noise disruption created by 64 families in an otherwise quiet, dark and peaceful environment in our backyards, is totally objectionable. Please know that we are only adamantly opposed to this type of development, namely 3 storey stacked townhouses, in this neighborhood. We chose yo purchase and moved to 30 Cora Drive from Muskoka 8 years ago, and have thoroughly enjoyed the shade, peaceful surroundings, great neighbours, quiet and darkness of this location. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, June & David Gemmell 26 Page 150 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Patricia King -Edge , Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 4:52 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Rd Townhomes NOT OK Some people who received this message don't often get email frorr Learn why this is important To Whom It May Concern, We as a community are disheartened to learn of the planned construction of 64 unit stacked townhomes at 60 Trussler Rd. It was originally laid out to be 5 executive homes which aligned with the surrounding homes and style of neighbourhood. This new plan of stacked townhomes does not fit this neighborhood and brings many concerns to the table. Not to mention how fishy this whole situation is. The property sold for nearly 1.3 million in 2020 as a single family home with a shop and then sold for two and a half times more at 3.3 million only a couple years later for a vacant lot without any zoning changes! Seems like somebody has a backdoor plan they knew would be approved. Everything about this situation is wrong. This high density living does not fit with a low density community. This is going to negatively impact the value of surrounding homes. I myself am a Real Estate Agent and I live on Waldau Cres. We have recently had 2 new build constructions each worth, in my opinion 2 million dollars. Other homes on Waldau and in the surrounding area are making improvements and increasing their value including my own home. When we all bought here, the surrounding streets and community were taken into deep consideration. This is a highly sought after neighbourhood. These townhomes will affect the value of our homes significantly. In order for this proposed plan to move forward a zoning change needs to take place along with variances. These changes are going to affect many properties in the future which will likely affect the value of the surrounding homes yet again. When this neighbourhood was planned and developed these intentions were not part of it and it should not be considered today. These townhomes are going to increase the density of this neighbourhood significantly. We have had several multi story buildings developed at the corner of Ira Needles and Highland, along with stacked townhomes and multi units being developed along Highland Rd. Trussler Rd and Bleams has 2 very large new subdivisions underway. There is now a newly accepted subdivision with a planned 262 to 410 units being built at Trussler and Bleams. There is pending land on Highland near Glasgow awaiting some type of development as far as we understand as well. With all these new residents comes the need for space, amenities, services, schools, doctoros, places for kids and families to walk and play, transportation options and/or parking availability. Our infrastructure in this area is not near ready to take on this many new occupants. This will significantly impede the already existing residents and their families. From what is already developed, we have more theft, trespassing, security problems and parking issues. I can't imagine how terribly worse these proposed 64 units will only add to these concerns. The loss of our green spaces and areas for families to just get outside and exist in the elements is next to eliminated. My neighbours and I are constantly catching people walking their dogs and dumping garbage on the small bit of surrounding farmland. My family owns acreage on Trussler Rd including a forested area. We are daily asking people to leave the property as they are trespassing. They think it is a public area to walk dogs and play with their kids. When we planted roots here we were surrounded by fields. Although we understand development and change is going to happen, this amount and this fast without the proper space and infrastructure backing it is just beyond frustrating. This gorgeous, safe and well cared for City of Kitchener is rapidly turning into something worse than Toronto. 27 Page 151 of 224 I RAF FICM Let's address one of the biggest issues that is in this city, TRAFFIC. With the traffic that the Ira Needles amenities bring in, the newly developed subdivisions and units along Ira Needles, the ample people that flow in for Costco, this area of town is going to be impossible! So much traffic flows in from the highway and up Trussler to Snyder's Rd from people out of town attending the Golden Triangle Sikh Association on Snyder's Rd. We have road safety and speed concerns as it is not being addressed on Trussler from them coming and going. Now we are going to add more people and more traffic and we can't even address and fix the current traffic and speed issues at hand. We have also addressed the same concerns for Waldau Cres and Chris Wilkinson, our Counsellor has done absolutely nothing to address this. All we asked for is a 30 km/h speed sign as suggested from an OPP and we can't even get that in place. Our children's safety is at risk on these streets. We have had countless encounters of the kids almost getting hit by a car while getting on and off the bus on Trussler Rd. Yet nobody wants to help address these safety concerns and all that seems to happen is the problem compiles. We can not turn left going North on Trussler Rd. When we come home from the arena in New Hamburg, we have to get off at Petersburg and come home on Snyder's Rd because it is impossible to turn left off the highway. Many changes are needed before any more consideration is given to making this a more high density area. So many other changes need to currently be made in order to keep up with the already underway development of the area. Our schools, doctors, stores and streets are bursting at the seams. We need more road safety implemented, more green space for communities, better road structure and traffic development. PLEASE for the well being and safety of our families do not accept these proposed 64 units to be added at 60 Trussler Rd. We as a community, as parents and residents ask you to consider our well being and safety ahead of someone's pocketbook. Sincerely, Patricia King -Edge 28 Page 152 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 3:25 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bil loannidis Subject: RE: 60 Trussler Road zoning exemption Hello Eric, I did not receive a reply to my email below, but reply to this proposed development are to be submitted by September 5. 1 do not understand what is permitted, what this developer is asking for in increased building height and decreased side yard setback. Our neighbourhood also did not receive much notice for such a large project proposal on a small building lot. Below are my comments and additional questions with the proposed 64 units on 60 Trussler Drive. This property was previously a single residence with a shop and a fruit orchard. After sale, the residence and shop were torn down, and looks like some trees removed, and then a real estate listing was for 5 or 6 deluxe condos. If developed in similar lot widths to Cora Drive there would be 11 single residences. The property requires an access road, so even 11 single residences would be smaller and/or closer than neighbouring residences. No matter how much density increases, developers want more. This zoning request is for 64 units that will tower over existing residences, and build on or pave over almost every inch of the property. The sketch shows two storey building, the description says 3 storey, but the concept drawing seems to have 4 storeys. The concept drawing does not show how these units would fit, how a road access would take up much of the property, and since I don't see any trees I assume the remaining trees will be removed. The information does not say if these will be condos or rental properties. Regardless, 73 parking spaces would not be sufficient resulting in parking overflowing to neighbouring streets. Parking on the end of Rauch Court (two storey town houses) is not sufficient and parked vehicles are around the keyhole, and up and down the street. It also does not say if these are surface parking or will be built below ground. Below ground would add additional issues of construction on neighbours. Recent headlines have shown people don't want shoe -box sized condos. People need places to raise a family. We need to promote decentralization not densification. A few of the issues a property with this many units are listed below High density property beside a low density street will reduce values of existing residences. Three (or four) story buildings will tower over existing neighbours and reduce quality of property enjoyment. Removal of green space and trees will increase rainfall going to storm sewers. We have been told for quite a few years to install rain barrels, and make changes to decrease rainfall going into sewers. Why permit this if our sewers can't handle existing rains? 29 Page 153 of 224 LCILK UI JUIIIUIUIII 11111dJU ULLUIC, t Jbptel.ldIIY WIIUIILL) IIIUIIICU WILII Lne IIUrnlJer UI new large dparUnenCS at Ira Needles and Highland, and along Highland. This includes streets, schools, and utilities. The water pressure to my residence has already decreased over the last few years. Schools are over crowded already. Traffic, speeding traffic and traffic noise is already increasing. • Zoning exemptions over and above the already increased density changes should not be permitted. We should not all lose what we love about our homes and neighbourhood. What is lost can never be restored. We should be able to have pride in our homes, our neighbourhoods, our cities, and our country. Canadian pride, mental health, friendliness are all suffering. We need more homes but not at the expense of all that is great about our neighbourhoods and country. Thanks Lynn Johnson c.c. Bil loannidis From: > Sent: September 1, 2024 2:39 PM To: 'eric.schneider@kitchener.ca' <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: 'bilioannidis@kitchener.ca' <bilioannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: 60 Trussler Road zoning exemption Hello Eric, I live on Cora Drive and am concerned about the request for zoning height change and decreased side yard setback. The height exemption request is 11.6 metres, which to me is 38 feet higher. Google tells me the average height of a storey in an apartment is 10 feet. Does the requested exemption equate to one? two? three? additional stories on the stacked units? The card I received says the concept is for 3 buildings of 3 storeys each, yet picture show 2 storeys. How tall would these proposed stacked townhouses be? How much is the decreased year setback that has been requested? How many units would be permitted with no zoning exemption? Thanks Lynn c.c. Bil loannidis, ward 7 councillor 30 Page 154 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Darlene Royle Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 2:22 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Stop the Trussler Road townhouses [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Dear Eric, This would negatively impact our neighborhood with more traffic, overflow parking on our streets, backyard privacy, and not enough room in our schools. We have a very small subdivision for such a large townhouse complex in a very small area! Thank you V—;- ---' f�adene Royle Sent from my iPhone Sent from my Phone Page 155 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Dana B < Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 1:40 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Road Development Feedback Attachments: Kitchener Developments.pdf Hi Bil and Eric, I hope you're both having a good day. I just wanted to send you my thoughts on the 60 Trussler Road development that's proposed. I live on Cora Drive. I'm 26 years old, and have been here my whole life. Cora Drive is where my childhood home is. I'm sure you've already gotten many other e-mails with concerns regarding privacy for backyards on Cora, light pollution (parking lot lights), noise pollution, lack of parking (will overflow park on Cora?), and so on. I second all of that. You can assume I echo most of the concerns coming from others in the area. I wanted to draw your attention to an idea that has a bit of a narrative. I've attached a PDF with my thoughts on the general area, and at the end I tie it all back together to the 60 Trussler Road development. I hope you can take the time to read through it. I used PDF as I had a lot of images I wanted to refer to. I also want to make clear that I understand that you two are not the ones proposing this development. I'm not upset with you, and I respect the hard work you do for the community. I'm just frustrated at the way our city is being developed, with a sharp increase in housing density that does not consider access to greenspace, and the negative impact on surrounding already established neighbourhoods. I also know that my comments might be a bit of screaming into the void since even if the city of Kitchener says no to certain aspects of the development, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) can just overrule it. I know that the Region of Waterloo has a "Building Better Futures Initiative" to build 2,500 affordable homes before the end of 2025, so that this project will probably go ahead no matter what. As much as this development upsets me, I'm at least glad it's not 16 storey condos, because I could legitimately see that getting approved with the way our region is rapidly expanding. So, we can't say let there be no development at 60 Trussler Road whatsoever. I understand that something needs to and will be built there. Something that would make me, and I'm sure a lot of the people in the surrounding area more comfortable, is if they were 2 storeys instead of 3. This would minimize sightlines of seeing the buildings themselves, as well as keep the backyards on Cora Drive and Rauch Court a little more private. It would also keep it more in line with the surrounding single family homes not going higher than 2 storeys. Thank you for taking the time to read through what I have to say. I know this project has probably created some headaches for you as well. Page 156 of 224 Dana Dana Burrell Inferior Designer BID I NCIDQ I ARIDO Page 157 of 224 i .� "p• ' � '��, ,� r ti .. � a; � • - �F-' mmrr� +may . + ' �,�,* . � �. - C LL Yp � y�5 } Y � •y ,.. [J . y4 f� � .RS�t n.� � meq' L .. e W 41 T Ay Ok ►, � , � �, •.. } ��' a ., � � ,-■ .ice .c, I r: _ � � 1y�� 15.. A . 1'rt Lr•'i x 3Li I= iFI. JF! �I Films �.f.+=icl i k+tit Op TP no CZ 3 t t ati _ J 16 •- oLn .g e / - 2 / * E o- 2 § i 2 Ln D E / / § \ ® 0) E 2 o / \ i 0 \q D 2 e 2 Ln S >'/ 2 E ? \ y 7 / 4-1 o U E.2 �—ew e 0-0— ; 2 & D.g \ / $ _ '/ ] -0 2 eo Zn Q) 5 / 6- -b 2 E 3 / y o ƒ / 0- Ln E z q %•@ 0- e Q)4.1 2 � 4 n41 0- ci ± ƒ 2: C - Ln 0- 2 E .\ / Q- 'IT N N 0 � ¢ 2 n � (D Q) O co �_ L O N O L Ln E i Q Q) n O Ol N _0C O) O O Q Q) pl (LO 0- -0 p v)07 E C +4-1 N Q } C_ Q) co O O Q) cn O V)U W Ln0 0 Q C +-+ CDO -0 O ZcVO 3 a) — CON N N 0� 0) -0 t > l/) C in i co Q) , L -I- `L -1--' O Q) Q-� 0 O 0 �O E p E E _ -�-- O O +J pl`~Ln QQ)) VI N CD cn c0 O N + 4-1 O Q) O �O N C: + Q) cn C of > O •� C Q' U +' > E O 0-0 cv 'n= i N Q Q) O N M O C L p N +0 O Ln O cp Ol C O ' cp •— Q) Q N N O N () O) (6 v O E. A 0 v +— p O co dl L O N -0 p to cn O cn i O E 3 N N -0 O m 666 .L 00 (� 0 .— (o O + to u 00 L- O QM p m o �-a— Q N >1E p 0 u i o >'• — N -u4 0l� � � m w � 0 w — Ln �' c0 L C co p 4J 4- co M C } C � cn C O N "— } a) _0 O "— V } u M 0) p O vNi C O 0 C C m in Q) } ° o f C — o Ln 3 0) 0i m F�� v+,o c� LQ 0 •� N O >, a)� •; u • O N5, ,�o O -a E o o p C > C:) O N in C .4-' p C Q) >,N + Q+ Q Q> Q V p O Q u O +' D Q cn m 0 co C\j 0) Q p +' � C Ln C C o x �o ��� E. A 0 v N N O ('7 N O1 y� O 666 N f7 � ry W ��77 DO y N N O ('7 N O1 ,v) L N O % i— 0) 0) Q o N L O Q O O cu Q) C N C V) x V) . _ (1) CL > L cu m O O +, _ 0-0 M O +' C cn co aV C .� 0'l -a a� 3 - �a 0 c p u>,i O U p ,_ N 7 O U m O Q) N L -a 0- o O O V) al 0) p C Q (6 U M N O m ' to co U �n co O O CU _ O 3 � x o ~ .L Q) O j a Q)a) — 3Q)� Q) N�Lna)o L 0) (O M 0-0 c 3 �Q)p � L 3 O 1 4J _ +1 O OU M N O vn 0) c6 O O110 011E- Q O N tn � O C: Q Q 3 O N N 4- 0 LO N O1 01 C L O O o o 'E N o Ln Co O a� N •N p1 � C t i-+ +- O w O — � +1 Q t L = C a- N0 V)OU O CY) C O N N U � m 4 - 0 cp cO N c0 Z) O O w N O Ncn Q � >� M 0— = Q Z N O cn '> p 3 cn > cB O Q) -0 p C Ln 0L Ln Q a--� h CLS O ' 0 >' N aj 3 Y 0 & 4- +' O Q) 4- M M 0- +D C u Ln Nu Q N 0 'L ,(n m O N i t u Q ON cp 0 N `-> cn coo >cu > O N 4- Q)V ' > c6 Ol cd O O O 0 C cn — Q o t 0- Lon - u ~ 0 3�oNQ �.— N O �l cn c0 yi - j {' �. �'�:` � ��� ? r� � ♦ ��*�,�y` ��� 'rx �'', �.,��� � � ,px. r' a _.�..� ,r._ � F ate, �• '. � _. .� a}55 .. 1 ' M ; - ' 4 •yes ` 1 '' r , y.,la f, -F - � Ly #�,�,. ;RSR �Q�'l, ',� at. ��•e y ,iy�'' 7#+t riy�i �r�J�p A !y. f 11 r� .} 'X • L1 JQf ffl xT _ p1 04 a%r� YF �F4 cwt x •T '. r.F, y r s a +#. n.,`� �;,* ;�. �• y`,%� a .Z"a _e 30 .y� 16 s .. ti ,t 16, Ir =: s . e k! y L cY px zq' F . �� X000 10 +� O � v v Q O N � � O V -C V E z 3 *' cu Ln Ln N O O V) + +' M O M O E ca 0.- 4-- `}-0 -0 N 0- E co Z3 .N t V Eo.� Ln Ln +' O14- 0) Ln O v� L V _ a-1 L O pl cn +,, C L � L 41 _O O 'N rvre�vii >, 0) Z V) 0 cu CY) 1 0 0 N Ln -0 Ln E 0 0 0 4— (D E Q) 0- 0 0 > ru u D Z, 0 0 E 'IT N N 4- 0 0 W A N N 4- 0 N ti N O1 N N O co 0) m 0- cn \ -p -p 4- 4- c0 (,n N cn N •� � p � � � (n � � _ L p � pl +' V N O Q L 00 Z C cB pl OC in 4-1 Z) Ln Ln p Q-0 L v1 30 C C C� N p C6 4- p 0 Ol Q N C ca F— 7U r• O = Q C U p _ p N t ���=� -0 o�0 o >, -c L- a� 0) O O Q v an O C O N EO in O >' V cp MO O 0- C O O Q)C C Q C t c6 co D L >' E V Cl }' o+- C N Q L M N O 4— V O O L N O Q N N O co 0) m 0- 'IT N N 0 'IT � ¢ 2 n � it P 0 m L a� C:) c N � cu GU C C L N 0-0 I+- Q) 0-0 0 Q X Q � N � CU O Z3 -0 CT co N N C � 1 � C L j N LJJ m N N N 0 LO ti a� 0) m a -N , N's W33 Av ll i Isy#. 4. i ;4 T L t 7-0 ri • ` - �OPT., ■.,'/4'•'' S6 ili S�SF� �y � = r i1 J �� Kd w+5 -`a 41,."a�7rLr'F a CO) TL- F x' Y Y r '-a Mti N'��Ny ,p,�,i •�I:.'il —_ R ll3?.�eU`�Ia.Pi�ll R±t11�sa;R3a i_J� � 1. � J ~5 •��`+ / xJi'e 34 It '+ J=- Q) N Q) n3 +-� O - °0 ° a) c Q) +-3 � u >,.0 OLn Ln E pO —Q a) >�>,Q�a)o0 O — o co c 0 CE � � ±2 E 113 0_ L 0 cn C C O o E Q) O c ° ' 0) O , E m � � (n 41 '� CQ))- (0V o 0 0) Q) c ►— D E4- U (0 ° a) O an O O N N V Ln 0 +, 0 N L L Q) �„ (O L occ-o=mu Ln Q n30 0) VaNMC m O ; QO ac O ° 0 -0 a) LA (n-0 C •L -0L O ,� � � Ol C V) I'D a) Q N CO a 0 0 Ol Q) -0 O- r o-0, C n3 V)En 0 E Q) Ota a,��-� — >;� E o-0 u a)Ln i- QN_O Q— U� Q)� �' a) U +� cn 0 O 6-2 o Q): a) O C O n3 ca m m}+ Q> a) U a `� U C C ��5�-0-0M mot 0) a) Eric Schneider From: campcosta Sent: Thursday, SepLcli,oer _), LOL4 AM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Cc: Costa, Herc Subject: Proposed Developement at 60 Trussler Rd. Re: Zone change Some people who received this message don't often get email from . . Learn why this is important Herc & Karen Costa Hello, We received the notification card in the mail indicating a proposed zone change, a height increase to 3 storey high, a 3 building complex equalling 64 dwellings with 73 parking spaces. We appreciate that we have been asked for our comments, and with that, we THANK YOU for reviewing our comments, concerns and questions. Overall, we GREATLY OPPOSE this proposal. This will change our street and our community. When we purchased our land (30 years ago) the zoning was completed then and it is this reason why we purchased our land and built our (forever) home. TRAFFIC At the time of land purchase, we were informed that Ira Needles Blvd. was to be constructed within 5 yrs, to which I believe took 12 yrs at completion. Before Ira Needles Blvd., ALL that traffic travelled our street, to which caused a lot of noise and delays to us. The traffic would be lined up well past our home, for the cars stopped at the Highland Rd stop sign. We needed to add an extra 10-20 min (true story) to our travel time, just to get out onto our street. We DO NOT want to go back to that scenario. Since the Highland/Ira Needles highrises have erupted our traffic has increased 10 fold already, including (prohibited) trucks that STILL use our street as a cut thru. We understand that 2 more highrises are coming to Highland Rd, near Glasgow. Therefore we again, will have that increased traffic from these new future highrises. To add ANOTHER 73 more cars(Proposed parking spots) travelling our street is not acceptable and disheartening for our street and home life. The WALDAU FOREST and TRAIL The proposed change would mean increased forest and Trail use. This is of GREAT concern to us. Our whole house is right beside a section of the walking trail (it's only a couple of feet from our property and house). This causes EXTREME easy access to our property and house. People can and do "hide" in the forest. Our experiences have been: -Rocks thrown at our home with window damage -Rocks and stricks thrown at our dog -Profanities yelled at our young children -Drug deals (exchanges) -Theft deals(exchanges) -our home itself has been broken into -Our retaining wall(along the walking trail) has been graffitied 2x -Seen people attempt/hurt animals (this week, a man tried to capture/to harm? a snake) -Kids like to cut sapling trees down for their entertainment -People will climb our wall to cut thru our front lawn instead of using the trail Page 179 of 224 -The Oktoberfest, look for a key/coin contest, was a horrible week of 100's(maybe 1000's) of people on our property; everywhere disrupting it (and the forest), during all 24 hours of the day(s). -This year (and it's not the first time) we had kids enter our property and steal from our shed/property to build a fort, in the forest. This is a reported incident with by-law and police. If said proposal is approved there will be more people on the walking trail. More people equals more (potential) problems for us (with our circumstances as stated)and for the forest. If the proposal is approved we will be strongly asking the City to move that section of the walking trail away from our property line and house. HOME VALUE If approved, this will devalue our home. Is the City of Kitchener going to reimburse that loss? This will make our property LESS appealing to potential buyers. HOME TAXES If approved, will our house taxes be lowered? COMMUNITY With rentals, people come and go. Currently, I can say I recognize the people from our neighbourhood, I talk them and know most people that walk by our home(sidewalk and trail). There's a sense of trust, respect and looking out for each other. This proposed zone change would CHANGE that feeling. We already have the Penelope Dr. complex. When that was constructed came more people and a timely observation to our property and home issues that have occurred, as listed above. Please don't change this community anymore. Please advise our concerns and questions. Regards, Herc and Karen Costa Question: Furthermore, a question that we have never pursued... can a hidden forest walking trail be located a couple of feet from an owners property line/house?? At our land purchase time, the trail itself was not 'established'. When it became established, yrs later, we didn't foresee any of the said issues, as we didn't feel the trail was greatly used(this then increased greatly after the Penelope complex arrived). Ultimately we have zero privacy for most of our property because of a section of the walking trail. Most people will stay on the established trail, but a section of it, is too close and too hidden in relation to our home. This has been proven that it's too attempting/too easy/too hidden for some people to resist. Please advise. Sent from my Galaxy Tab® S2 ry: Page 180 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Kevin Ambrose Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 9:34 AM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Rd Development Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Good Morning I am a 30 +year resident of Cora Drive and grew up just west of Trussler Road on Highland. Over the years I have seen many changes in the area. My home backs onto the woodlot where I played as a child so I think it is fair to say I know the area well. The proposed development on the lot at 60 Trussler Road concerns me, as this is something that eclipses all the changes I have seen here in my lifetime. I fully understand and am a supporter of limiting urban sprawl but this proposal seems wrong on so many fronts. When the lot in question was sold several years ago there was quickly a proposal to turn what was once a single residence lot into what I recall being a 5 unit development. That scale of change seemed to make sense to me, and could be seen as an evolution that reflected the changes in housing between the early 90's when I moved here to the current day. This new proposal is too much. The addition of this many units at their density is so far out of step with the current residential makeup that I cannot support it or believe it would be supported by the city. My concerns can be summarized as follows The height of the proposed structure dwarfs the existing residential properties and brings privacy concerns to those who directly border the development. The scale is all wrong. Longtime residents already refer to 38 Cora as the albatross in reference to a outlier in the neighborhood. Decreased setbacks once approved set a precedent for future applications. Soon someone wilt want to build another building that wants to cover a greater portion of the lot and decrease the green space. 40 Traffic has always been a concern on Cora Drive as before the addition of Ira Needles all residences in the area were only accessible by using Cora Drive. We certainly don't need more traffic on the street. a. Cora Drive street parking is already an issue. There are already too many vehicles parked on the street. We do not need more. ■ The proposed change would definitely have a negative overall impact on the residential appeal, and thus value, of the neighborhood. I guess the developer apply for variances and then seek to modify the existing regulations to suit their plans. As a resident of the area I strongly oppose the approval of the proposal as it currently stands. It feels to me that this is a proposal is an attempt to maximize returns on the land by adding as many units as possible. The original 5 unit proposal would make sense. This does not. Thanks for your time Kevin Ambrose C.E.T., C.I.M. Page 181 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Dianne Ambrose Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 9:13 AM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Mr Schneider Mr. loannidis Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road I would like to submit my opposition to the proposed development of 3 stacked townhouses at 60 Trussler Road. This area is for the most part a residential neighbourhood consisting of single detached homes. Adding 3 stacked townhouses, each being a 3 -storey building will add a substantial number of residents to our neighbourhood which I'm not sure we can support. Trussler road has already been slated for traffic calming and adding 64 dwellings in such a small, confined space on Trussler Road will just make traffic in our area much worse. Visitors to these units will inevitably park on our streets which will lead to increased traffic on nearby residential streets. As well, it will substantially impact the enjoyment of our properties as we will now have 3 story buildings towering over our yards with people looking into our yards. A lot of my neighbours have been here for a very long time, and it is unfair that the privacy and hence enjoyment of their backyards is taken away from them. The property in question was never zoned for this kind of development and so anyone on our street who purchased a home will have been caught completely off guard by this change and their property values will surely decrease as will the enjoyment of their property. Itis unfair. It seems we have lost all focus on what is being built anymore and it is all about just getting as much housing built with as many people as you can within each development. There is so much housing already being built in our area, and it concerns me that this is the focus without any thought to other infrastructure like roads, schools, and hospitals. Ira Needles is already a very busy road and continues to be very busy even after widening it to two lanes in both directions. I am very much against this development and strongly feel that the proposed stacked townhouses are not a good fit for our neighborhood. Sincerely, Dianne Ambrose Page 182 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Brandon Brilhante Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 8:31 AM To: bill.ioannidis@kitchener.ca; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Road Kitchener - NO, TO TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT - Importance: High You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Good morning, I am writing in STRONG opposition to the proposed 64 stacked townhomes proposed for 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener. There are a number of reasons why I strongly oppose this proposed development. The houses in this area especially, on Trussler are single family homes. This keeps traffic at a reasonable level. If the proposed 64 stacked units are built, at an average of 4 people per unit, there would be an additional 256 people added to this street. Not to mention at minimum 2 vehicles per unit, so an additional 128 vehicles with only 73 proposed parking spots, and that does not take into account visitors of the residents. Traffic and speeding is already an issue on Trussler, now add parking along with additional traffic, it will get exponentially worse and much more unsafe for the children and adults in the local community. People live on the outskirts of the city and pay a premium to live here for many reasons. Community safety, privacy, amongst others. The listed reasons, not to mention property value will all be affected with a development of this size. Crime is on the rise in Kitchener Waterloo, and introducing this many people in such a condensed area, with the types of properties/houses in the surrounding area is an invitation for bad actors. The infrastructure is not set up in this area for this many people all at once. This means the construction and development that it would take to bring it up to standard would be intense, which the people in this area are not willing to endure, for something that will have a negative effect on there lives. I know for a fact I do not just speak for myself when I say that this development is NOT wanted or needed in this area. A few years ago the property was a single family home, which was bought and torn down. There was a zoning change to build 5 estate homes on the property, which I believe most were okay with, as it blends and fits in the area, which was acceptable. I've lived in this area for over 14 years, and have never had something this ridiculous proposed for this area. There is no way this development should be approved. Regards, Brandon Brilhante Commercial & Industrial Please consider the environment before printing this message Confidential. This email may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please 39 Page 183 of 224 return this email to the sender immediately and permanently delete it. Thank you. 40 Page 184 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 10:54 PM Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: Regarding Proposal for 60 Trussler Road (Application Number: ZBA24/019/T/ES) - Tiffanie Jakoplic and James Moser Some people who received this message don't often get erna l Pram is Learn why this is important Hello Eric Schneider and Bit loannidis, We are writing to you as owners of a home located on the southern property line of the proposed new multi -residential build at 60 Trussler Road in Kitchener. Our backyard faces this lot. We purchased our home last year and at the time of purchase, knew the city had approved 5 lots for that site in 2021. If we would have known there was potential that a three-story 64 -unit condo complex with 3 buildings could be put there, we would not have purchased this home with that being put right in the backyard. As you probably suspect, we are writing to express our deep concerns with this change to the current zoning. This will affect the enjoyment of our backyard, the privacy of our homes, and affect the whole neighbourhood. There are just too many people proposed to be living on this small lot which used to have only one family on it. This proposal does not correlate to the culture and feeling of the current community, which is low- density, quiet, and calm. Multi -residential units would not be in keeping with the entire rest of the area. Why change the original planning for a low-density area on the very last lot in an otherwise finished Low density area? The fact that the buildings are going to be three stories high, allows them to tower over all the other houses on Cora drive and Rauch Court. Not only does that take away any privacy we have, blocks out the enjoyment of the sun in our backyards, but also allows some of the building residents to view what is happening on Cora Drive and affects the privacy of the owners on the south side of Cora Drive too. Athree- story building will loom over our homes and be easily visible from the surrounding streets. The amount of traffic proposed on this small lot will be high. Not only will that affect the capacity on the current streets in the neighbourhood for traffic and parking, but no other homeowner in this neighbourhood has 73 parking spots right in their backyard. This will bring car noise, pollution, and the flashing of headlights and taillights at at[ hours of the day and night. This is unfair, so close to our properties and our backyards which should be a place of calm, not a busy lane way with dozens of cars constantly going back and forth. This small lot, and the proposed design, bring the cars just too close for us to ignore. There will be large streetlights erected on this lot, to illuminate the site for resident safety. This is unfair to have to have lights in our backyard glaring at all hours. This disrupts our serene, tranquil space and takes away our privacy. As an addition to what we mentioned earlier; we are concerned about the value of our home with a condo/apartment building directly behind us. We worry about the location of the building's garbage cans and recycling for this many residents. There is nothing in the proposal to outline where this will be kept and if put near the homes, could cause odours that would be unpleasant and affect the enjoyment of our properties. Page 185 of 224 0 We are concerned with the removal of the green spaces and all the old growth mature trees on the lot. We would hope that if this proposal is approved by the city, you would consider the following and make it mandatory in their approval requests: Limit the buildings to two stories to reduce the number of units and number of people living in this small area. 0 Put up a 12 -foot stone/cement sound barrier wall for all the surrounding properties. ■ Keep as many large trees as possible, including the evergreens on the south property line. Potentially, plant evergreens along the property line to hide the buildings from the backyards of the surrounding homes. Garbage and recycling to be put as far away from the surround lots, so put it on the northern property line of the lot. We are hoping that by writing to you, you will take our concerns seriously. We hope we have expressed our concerns so that you will review this request from all angles. We hope you seriously consider how a three-story building in our backyard really reduces the enjoyment of the surrounding properties to include our home. We welcome you to visit our home and see the property in person before making your decision. The artist rendering of the lot and buildings makes the lot look much wider and the buildings much further away than they actually would be. This is not the lot, or the area, for a 64 -unit complex. We respectfully request you deny this application and deny the rezoning of this small lot from RES -1 to RES -5. Thankyou, Tiff anie Jakoplic and James Moser Page 186 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Lisa VanGalen Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:22 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: Trussler Road proposed development Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Gentlemen: I have noticed a sign posted on a property south of the Heroux Devtek facility on Trussler Road that troubles me. While I understand the need for housing and the current push for high-density development, I do not believe this property is suitable for the model being presented. Trussler Road is a country road bridging the City of Kitchener and the Township of Wilmot. The west side is farmland and single-family dwellings, while the east side is primarily detached homes on well -matured streets. There is high-density housing already in the area, but it is sized in keeping with the surrounding homes. The proposed high-rise apartments would not only affect the immediate properties, but those on neighbouring streets, and in this case, neighbouring townships. The increase in construction traffic alone would further damage an already aged road. The addition of 64 families would impact the traffic immensely, congesting a small neighbourhood that already experiences limited access and egress. This is the edge of the city, and is not well established with bus routes or easy access to amenities, so it will be expected that the new residents will be driving, as most of those who live here do now. Lowering the speed limit has not deterred drivers from using the north portion of Trussler Road as a by-pass to reach Ira Needles Blvd. at Highview, a popular method of reaching Hwy. 7. Adding a potential of 100 more vehicles on a daily basis in such a small area is a prospect that needs to be taken seriously. As a long-time resident, I can attest to the challenges we face in winter on Trussler Road. Increasing the traffic will not make it easier or safer for our children as they wait for school buses, or for seniors, or anyone for that matter, trying to cross from one side to the other. Parking is limited and I wonder where all of the trades will put their vehicles when working on such a small lot. The overflow is sure to impact the people living on Cora Drive, preventing them from enjoying their own space and access. The quiet life that we enjoy will be affected for months, if not years, just for the construction phase of the project, leading into the ongoing noise of traffic on Trussler Road and the attached side roads once the units are populated. I urge you to reconsider the proposal to place such a development on the property currently before you, and revisit options that better suit the area it is being placed in. Lisa VanGalen � s Page 187 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sandra Paprocki Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:01 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bil loannidis Subject: Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener ii, message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Sirs, I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband, Sandra and Dan Paprocki of We have lived at this address for 33 years and have seen many changes to our neighbourhood in that time, some for the betterment and some not quite so much. We are writing to voice our concerns regarding the proposed construction of 64 stacked townhomes on a property that formerly held only one home. There are many reasons to halt this construction. The traffic flow is a major consideration. We have advocated over the years for traffic calming measures, and despite the speed limit being dropped to 40km/hr the cars continue to zoom past at speeds well over 60km/hr. It is difficult to stand outside and have a conversation with your neighbour because of the volume of traffic. That will only get much worse with the addition of potentially 74 more cars on the street. There is basically also no public transit available on Trussler Road, which would mean all those people would be driving. And we really don't want buses rumbling by constantly. It is unsafe to walk down Highland Road to Ira Needles as there is no sidewalk. The roundabout at Highland and Ira Needles is already a nightmare. This new build would only make it so much worse. Ira Needles was installed to take traffic off of Trussler Road and we were cut off at Highview Drive to deter excessive traffic. Please do not take a step backwards. Our community is a close knit, family neighbourhood, most of whom have lived here for decades. Please help us keep our streets quiet and safe for the children who live here. Sincerely, Sandra and Dan Paprocki ff Page 188 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Jennie Paquette Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 8:46 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: URGENT: 60 Trussler Rd, Kitchener You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hi Eric, I am writing this evening to express my concerns about this new possible development in my small neighbourhood. I am a resident of . We have 2 children and a dog and love the small, caring community we are currently part of. My concerns about taking this single dwelling lot and changing it to 64 homes are as follows: 1. Currently we are zoned to attend Meadowlane Public School within the WRDSB. This school is small and has a wonderful set of teachers and supportive parents. It is however on the other side of Forest Heights, off McGarry. This development would most definitely increase the population of our small school and require more bussing, which as it stands is not an easy feat within the board. We are also zoned for St Dominic Savio Catholic School in the WCDSB, which has outgrown itself and currently has over 4 portables. This is also a school that requires bussing of students, which once again is not easy at this time within the region. 2. Our house is on the corner of Trussler and Costain. We see the traffic concerns on a daily basis as it is with larger trucks, dump trucks, high speeds, etc. There have been several accidents at the corner, which have been brought to the cities attention but to little change. A new development, of this size, will only add to the traffic concerns already in place. 3. Although this doesn't directly affect us, I feel for the people who will be backing to this development and will lose all sense of privacy within their own property. These new homes will over look the fences of my neighbours and take away the truly old feel of these lovely large lots that we are privy to. 4. The changing of the building requirements to allow for this development will open up our tiny neighbourhood of large lots to more of these large developments that we just cannot support. 5. I'm concerned about parking and where cars will go when there are not places available within the complex lot. We do not have the infrastructure to support cars parked along the road. Other concerns include changes to storm water/waste water, changes to our property values (which in today's economy, we just don't need), and possible increase in crime during and after construction. Please take these concerns seriously as you consider this development and know that we do not support it. Thank you. Jennie Paquette Page 189 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: Kate Bartolo i> Wednesday, September 4, 2024 8:20 PM Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Feedback on 60 Trussler Road Development Some people who received this message don't often get email fron Dear Mr. Schneider and Mr. loannidis, earn why this is important I am writing to you both with concern about the planned development at 60 Trussler Road of stacked townhouses and a parking lot. This news is very concerning to me and my family and to everyone in my community. I live at with my husband, Joseph, and 1 -year-old son, Dominic. My back fence borders the plot of land, so this development impacts my family directly. My understanding is that a three-storey building could be built looking down into our backyard, and due to the variances requested, it may be built close to our fence line. I am concerned about the impact of this development on my family: - A high number of strangers will have a view into my backyard, where my small child and future children will play. We highly value our privacy, and we also don't want to expose our children to being watched by people we don't know. The parking lot will probably be brightly lit and have people coming and going at all hours. - I have a disability and sensory issues and chose my house for the peace and quiet of this neighbourhood. This development will increase traffic, light, noise, and the population density of this area. - My family and all families in this neighbourhood will see their property values decrease. If we choose to leave due to the impact of this development, we would be forced to downgrade. Either way, we lose the value of our homes that we have paid for and worked hard for. I am also concerned about the impact on this community and the City of Kitchener: The increased traffic and population density means increased noise and light pollution, more speeders, and a higher rate of crime. - The parking for tenants and guests will overflow onto Cora Drive, increasing the traffic on this street and putting our children at risk. This neighbourhood does not have the public transportation or schools to accommodate this number of new people. - The location is not safe for walking. With 64 new households, the foot traffic on Trussler and Highland will increase, but there is no sidewalk on the far side of Trussler Road or on either side of Highland Rd. The school bus and bus stop capacity could increase to unsafe levels. Increased light and noise pollution will negatively impact the local wildlife. The green space and old-growth trees will be removed. - This area has a high water table. How will our collection systems be impacted if we completely pave over this lot? I'm concerned about an increased risk of flooding. This neighbourhood is beautiful, quiet, peaceful, and safe. I understand the need for increased housing, but that cannot come at the expense of the hard-working families in this area. It is especially not right that this developer will profit greatly from this development while all of the families in this community will lose hard-earned money and our peaceful way of life. This development is unethical for the reasons stated above and many more. We implore you not to authorize this construction. Sincerely, Page 190 of 224 Kate Bartolo Page 191 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from Eric, Good Evening Jeff Paquette Wednesday, September 4, 2024 8:16 PM Eric Schneider **URGENT** 60 Trussler Road Learn why this is important I am writing you to express my anger towards this development of 60 Trussler Road from even being a consideration. My name is Jeffrey Paquette and I have been a resident of since 2006. First off this was a single-family home now being converted to 64 Unit stack town homes. How are you and the city working in our best interest? This creates a multitude of issues short and Longterm. I am not sure howthe city can even consider the volume of units being built on the size of property that is being proposed. What would you do if this was in your backyard? Existing problems: TRAFFIC Industrial traffic that should not be on the street Large Commercial that should not be on the street Speed around the Trussler corner off the round about 0 3 motor cycles landed in the ditch due to speed and corner * 2 cars in the ditch due to corner 1 flipped over o Multiple collisions on the corner o Cement truck fallen over * Dino's trucking to gravel pit not allowed on street but are o Transports to Erb not allow on the street but are .o Traffic from Devtek is very fast o Entourage / Bell Service trucks fast and don't pay attention o Traffic to the temple is fast o The only people who drive reasonable in the area are neighborhood residents o SPEED SPEED SPEED!!!! Now your goal is to allow for 64 high density residents to the area plus all the construction traffic and move in traffic. Your allowance of this volume of housing is irresponsible and dose not consider the neighbourhood residents. What about the crime issues in our neighborhood? It is already higher than it needs to be. We realize there is a right of the landowner to build something there. This is acceptable. Some townhomes 6-8 (10 max), bungalows, back splits etc. But 64 unit 3 story unit is unacceptable and we as a community will not allow this to happen. Other areas of our concern that needs to be discussed! * High density living in a low-density community Page 192 of 224 • 3 story buildings looking overtop of our neighbour's properties Backyard privacy for the area will be no longer + Zoning changes that can impact other lots within the community ■ Variances being requested to build closer to property lines • Increase density can create the potential of increased crime within the community • Removal of our green spaces and old growth trees • Storm water will have a negative impact on our collection systems Negative impact on the feel and culture of our neighborhood • Property values can negatively be impacted * Impact on local schooling which is already busting out at the seams • Overflow parking of new development tenants can linger on to community streets Additions of publictr-qnsportation through our community streets Please respect the community and do not allowthe volume of housing to be built. Sincerely, Jeffrey S. Paquette Learn more about our Switch -Rated Devices Notice: This message may contain information which is confidential and protected by copyright or which may contain any other intellectual property rights. The use of the MELTRICO, MARECHALO and TECHNORO trademarks without the prior written consent of our company is forbidden. If you are not the intended recipient of this message please delete it and all copies. Page 193 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Jeff Fernandes < Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 8:06 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: Regarding the development being proposed at 60 Trussler Road. Some people who received this message don't often get email from i. Learn why this is important Hey guys, My name is Jeff Fernandes, current owner and resident at . I received the pamphlet regarding the three-story building being proposed to be built behind my backyard. I have the following questions: 1. What happened to the original proposal? Is anything that was agreed upon that meeting still being applied to this project? 2. Will these buildings be low income/affordable housing units? What would be the proposed completion date? 3. Are there any plans to mitigate the extra noise, light pollution, traffic that an extra 100 or so people residing in these units bring? 4. A 3 storey building in this neighborhood would be unprecedented, especially since this is the edge of kitchener, where most resident's come to escape the noise and the hustle of the kitchener core. In saying that, we currently do have two story townhomes within our neighborhood, which doesn't affect the look, feel, noise, traffic and privacy concerns of the neighbors around them. Could the plan be adjusted to be only 2 story townhomes since precedence has been set already within our neighborhood? I believe two story units would alleviate most of the concerns the residents of this neighborhood would have. Thank you in advance for any information guys may have Get Outlook for Android Page 194 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Jose Rodrigues Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 7:50 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Road Development proposal You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mr. Schneider, It is with great concern and disappointment on learning about this development proposal. Enabling the construction of 64 units on less than 2 acres of land is caving in to a developer's greed. Very high density housing including parking and 3 story units which requires zoning change will transform our very quite community into heavy traffic area and undesirable neighborhood . We all know housing is in short supply, the first proposal for this land a couple of years ago was understandable. Two story buildings should be the limit to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood . Thank you Jose Rodrigues Page 195 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from Hello Mr. Schneider, M. D. Menchenton Wednesday, September 4, 2024 4:41 PM Eric Schneider Proposed development in our neighbourhood _earn why this is important Earlier, my husband Bryan Menchenton sent you our feedback on the proposed development of stacked townhouses in our area of Kitchener. I'm not certain if he had the correct address. This was for the property at 60 Trussler Road in Kitchener. Thank you for considering our concerns. Marj Menchenton Page 196 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Brian Benner Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 12:31 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Road Some people who received this message don't often get email from m. Learn why this is important Good afternoon, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Ioannidis, my name is Brian Benner. I live at , and I am writing today to let you know that I am strongly opposed to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. Here are my concerns. 1. The proposed development is suggesting 64 dwelling units but only 73 parking spots. Will there be ample parking at this location, or will the overflow come to my street (Cora Drive)? During periods of increased street parking demands (i.e.: Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, summer parties, etc.) there is already an issue with extra parking for the residents of Cora Drive. I can only imagine that problem with be amplified if this proposed housing plan is approved. 2. I fear that changing the zoning to allow for this high density dwelling with impact other lots, setting my neighborhood up for extreme changes. I see many of these types of developments in the region, but I felt they wouldn't reach me based on our current country like setting. The very reason we purchased this home in 2003. 3. Road safety is a real concern for me. The cars are already speeding down Cora Drive to get to and from Ira Needles/Sniders Road and adding 64 dwelling units to the area will increase traffic, increase noise, and further risk pedestrian safety from racing motorists. I often feel unsafe walking in my neighbourhood (Cora Drive, Penelope Drive, Ira Needles, Trussler Road) due to speeding. You could argue that reduced speed limit would fix that issue but the recent reduction of the speed limit on Trussler Road is a prime example of how that's not the answer. Those who drove 60km/hr+ before the reduction are still driving at that rate of speed. Those who drove 50km/hr before the reduction are now driving the posted 40km/hr. It's fine to reduce the speed limit but if there's no enforcement there's really no point. 4. I believe this development will change the landscape and impact the feel and culture of my neighbourhood, affecting my property value. I worry that this building plan could deter potential buyers as this may no longer be viewed as a relatively safe and quiet community. 5. There could be an increase in crime within my community because of the proximity of this high-density dwelling. 6. The months of construction traffic, dust and noise will directly impact the enjoyment and serenity of my home. 5, Page 197 of 224 7. This plan will call for the removal of old growth trees and green space. The families that would be living in this proposed plan will have no where to go for outdoor activities. There are no parks in this neighbourhood for the children to get their exercise and there doesn't seem to be an allowance for green space at the location of the proposed development. Waldau Woods is currently a very nice spot for a lovely short stroll but I'm afraid that the children from this property development will be attracted to this location and this may lead to destructive behaviour and impact my privacy as our property backs onto Waldau Woods. 8. I'm concerned about the access to public transit for these residents. There is a bus stop at Highland Rd/Ira Needles, but no sidewalks along that portion of Highland Road, making that a very dangerous passage. There is also a bus stop on Penelope/Ira Needles but crossing Ira Needles to reach Penelope is treacherous. I refer to that street as Ira Speedway because that's exactly what it is. Very few vehicles drive at the posted speed limit of 60km/hr and there is seldom police presence to deter this behaviour. 9. Are the local schools prepared for the potential increase in population? Would the people who would be attracted to this type of development not be better serviced by a location with plans in place for increased student demand? When this property was sold 3-4 years ago there were posted plans for a 5 -unit development. In my opinion, a housing unit of that design would be better suited for this neighbourhood. I thank you for taking my concerns to heart and hope that a much more appropriate building plan will be considered. Sincere regards, Brian Benner M Page 198 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Susan Benner Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 11:02 AM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: 60 Trussler Road Some people who received this message don't often get email from i. Learn why this is important Good morning, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Ioannidis, my name is Susan Benner. I live at , and I am writing today to let you know that I am strongly opposed to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. Here are my concerns. 1) The proposed development is suggesting 64 dwelling units but only 73 parking spots. Will there be ample parking at this location, or will the overflow come to my street (Cora Drive)? During periods of increased street parking demands (i.e.: Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, summer parties, etc.) there is already an issue with extra parking for the residents of Cora Drive. I can only imagine that problem with be amplified if this proposed housing plan is approved. 2) I fear that changing the zoning to allow for this high density dwelling with impact other lots, setting my neighborhood up for extreme changes. I see many of these types of developments in the region, but I felt they wouldn't reach me based on our current country like setting. The very reason we purchased this home in 2003. 3) Road safety is a real concern for me. The cars are already speeding down Cora Drive to get to and from Ira Needles/Sniders Road and adding 64 dwelling units to the area will increase traffic, increase noise, and further risk pedestrian safety from racing motorists. I often feel unsafe walking in my neighbourhood (Cora Drive, Penelope Drive, Ira Needles, Trussler Road) due to speeding. You could argue that reduced speed limit would fix that issue but the recent reduction of the speed limit on Trussler Road is a prime example of how that's not the answer. Those who drove 60km/hr+ before the reduction are still driving at that rate of speed. Those who drove 50km/hr before the reduction are now driving the posted 40km/hr. It's fine to reduce the speed limit but if there's no enforcement there's really no point. 4) I believe this development will change the landscape and impact the feel and culture of my neighbourhood, affecting my property value. I worry that this building plan could deter potential buyers as this may no longer be viewed as a relatively safe and quiet community. 5) There could be an increase in crime within my community because of the proximity of this high-density dwelling. 6) The months of construction traffic, dust and noise will directly impact the enjoyment and serenity of my home. Page 199 of 224 7) This plan will call for the removal of old growth trees and green space. The families that would be living in this proposed plan will have no where to go for outdoor activities. There are no parks in this neighbourhood for the children to get their exercise and there doesn't seem to be an allowance for green space at the location of the proposed development. Waldau Woods is currently a very nice spot for a lovely short stroll but I'm afraid that the children from this property development will be attracted to this location and this may lead to destructive behaviour and impact my privacy as our property backs onto Waldau Woods. 8) I'm concerned about the access to public transit for these residents. There is a bus stop at Highland Rd/Ira Needles, but no sidewalks along that portion of Highland Road, making that a very dangerous passage. There is also a bus stop on Penelope/Ira Needles but crossing Ira Needles to reach Penelope is treacherous. I refer to that street as Ira Speedway because that's exactly what it is. Very few vehicles drive at the posted speed limit of 60km/hr and there is seldom police presence to deter this behaviour. 9) Are the local schools prepared for the potential increase in population? Would the people who would be attracted to this type of development not be better serviced by a location with plans in place for increased student demand? When this property was sold 3-4 years ago there were posted plans for a 5 -unit development. In my opinion, a housing unit of that design would be better suited for this neighbourhood. I thank you for taking my concerns to heart and hope that a much more appropriate building plan will be considered. Sincere regards, Susan Benner Page 200 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Mary Bland Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:35 AM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. Some people who received this message don't often get email from am why this is important Good Morning Councilor, loannidis and Mr. Schneider I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express our concerns about a proposed development notice for 64 stacked units at the top of Trussler road in Kitchener. The site was once a single-family home, the land was sold and a proposed development of 5 luxury bungalows was then posted on the land which was a good fit for the community. Since then, we have now gone to the 64 town houses. We are not councilors or planners so have no concept of how the zoning laws work but how can something be rezoned to a completely different project. This is a small low-density community and to build 64 town houses on this location will impact this small community immensely. This development will overlook neighbour's properties, reducing the privacy for the families who spend time with their young children in a quiet environment. The potential noise levels are a serious concern for all the properties that will back onto the proposed development. Also, with this development comes the issue of traffic which as I am sure you are both aware is major problem everywhere. With this new residence comes an estimated 64 -128 cars which then causes more high-volume traffic, concerns for road safety, increased noise. Will the extra cars orvisitors park on the small number of streets we have where the local children play? We could talk about the impact on the schools and area amenities as well as many other issues but I am sure you are fully aware of these potential problems. Communities, friends and families talk and the new developments are a hot topic of conversation which is more negative than positive. The general consensus is that this email is a complete waste of time as the public are not being heard. We hope to prove them wrong and start to have a little faith in the City of Kitchener decision makers. To conclude we are strongly opposing this development and hope that you can find a different alternative to the town houses. Best Regards Phil & Mary Bland ,f Page 201 of 224 Kitchener Page 202 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from Dear Mr. Schneider, Harry Weiss Tuesday, September 3, 2024 5:22 PM Eric Schneider Project at 60 Trussler Rd. i. Learn why this is important We live on Penelope Dr. ,just a block away from the site in question. Penelope has all single houses, whereas Rauch Court has only semis. The house across from us has about 14 occupants, the one beside us has been altered to house 3 different families. Behind our property are 85 Townhomes. Many families, many cars. Some cars are parked on the street 24/7. Needless to say, planning 64 more units is not acceptable. There are very many children in this neighbourhood. There are about 4 school buses picking the children up. This points to an unsafe neighbourhood. Thankyou for your consideration. Harry & Trudy Weiss Page 203 of 224 Eric Schneider From: janette graf-king _ Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 3:41 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: i am opposed to the zone change for 60 Trussler road, kitchener -- your info is also misleading You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Your information on the internet is incorrect on top off all the other things about this rezoning. Please contact me regarding this at The City of Kitchener has received an application for a vacant land condominium consisting of 5 residential units, and common element areas. An internal drive aisle, walkway, and landscaped areas will make up the common elements. In keeping with physical distancing measures recommended by Public Health due to COVID-19, an electronic public meeting will be held by the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee, a Committee of Council which deals with planning matters, on: Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. (live -stream video available at kitchener.ca/watchnow) If you wish to make written and/or verbal comments either in support of, or in opposition to, the above noted proposal you may register as a delegation at kitchener.ca/delegations or by contacting Legislated Services at 519-741-2200 ext. 2203 by no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 13, 2021. A confirmation email and instructions for participating in the meeting electronically with be provided once your registration is received. If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of the City of Kitchener to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener prior to approval/refusal of this proposal, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by contacting the staff person noted below or by viewing the report contained in the meeting agenda (posted 10 days before the meeting at www.kitchener.ca - click on the date in the Calendar of Events and select the appropriate committee). Eric Schneider, Planner- 519-741-2200 x7843 (TTY: 1-866-969-9994); eric.schneider@kitchener.ca September 13th is a f rid ay??????????????????? Respectfully, Janette Lynn Graf -King Sales Representative Re/Max Real Estate Centre (licensed since April 1987) 60 Page 204 of 224 f Member of Life Time Achievement Club Hall of Fame Club Platinum Club We are never to busy for your referrals which are greatly appreciated! f, Page 205 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Holly Burrell Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 1:43 PM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: proposed development at 60 Trussler Rd Good afternoon, just wanted to submit my comments/questions/concerns regarding the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road in Kitchener. I can't think of anyone who wants 64 stacked townhouses in their backyard. What happened to 5 executive homes? Much more reasonable, but I'm guessing not as profitable. They are going to provide 73 parking spaces ... for 64 units?? Where will the overflow park? What about visitor parking? Will Cora Drive be lined with cars on a continual basis? Have the developers provided a plan for a park/green space for these residents? Playground equipment for their children? Or, once again, are they just assuming the small park in Waldau Woods will suffice? Have the traffic concerns been addressed? There is already a high volume of (speeding) traffic using Trussler Road. Assuming there will only be one outlet from this development, I can't imagine the traffic congestion and increased risk to cyclists/pedestrians. struggle to understand how putting 64 units on a property that previously held one ranch bungalow makes sense. I understand the need for development in the community, but this plot of land is not large enough to support this proposal. I mean, technically it is, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. have lived in the area for 30 years. I have seen many changes over this time. Sadly, this development will likely be the final straw, forcing me to find somewhere that has the same vibe that this neighbourhood once had. have previously communicated with Bil, and understand that the developers usually get the rubber stamp from the OLT with little or no regard for the concerns of the nearby community. I'm sure there are other issues that I haven't even thought of. I hope that the combined voices of the local residents will at least be considered. Thank you for your time and have a great day, Holly Burrell Page 206 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from ii. Thank you Bill. I appreciated your time. Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone Lisa Thompson < Tuesday, September 3, 2024 11:35 AM Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road earn why this is important On Tuesday, September 3, 2024, 11:01 AM, Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> wrote: Thanks Lisa. Nice chattingwith you. Regards, Bil loannidis City of Kitchener Councillor Ward 7 Corporate Contact Centre 519-741-2345 info@Kitchener.ca From: Lisa Thompson < Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:14 /alvi To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road You don't often get email from Good morning Eric, Learn why this is important Please see the attached document pertaining to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. I will be participating on the September 12th Zoom Meeting. Please note that I am requesting a notice of decision. Lisa Thompson Page 207 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Bil loannidis Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 11:01 AM To: Eric Schneider; Lisa Thompson Subject: Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road Thanks Lisa. Nice chatting with you. Regards, Bil loannidis City of Kitchener Councillor Ward 7 Corporate Contact Centre 519-741-2345 info@Kitchener.ca From: Lisa Thompson Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:14 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road You don't often get email from Good morning Eric, 3. Learn why this is important Please see the attached document pertaining to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. I will be participating on the September 12th Zoom Meeting. Please note that I am requesting a notice of decision. Lisa Thompson Page 208 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good morning, Darren, Bil loannidis Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:52 AM DARREN ALI; Eric Schneider Anita Zapletan Csonti Re: 60 Trussler road Thank you for your email. I too have concerns about the proposed development. Feet free to connect with mw at 519-590-5398. Regards, Bil loannidis City of Kitchener Councillor Ward 7 Corporate Contact Centre 519-741-2345 info@Kitchener.ca From: DARREN ALI Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 11:51 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Bil loannidis <Bi1.loan nidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: 60 Trussler road Some people who received this message don't often get email from dai Gentlemen, Learn why this is important We are residents of this small three street community and have been told of a proposal to double our community with stacked housing on Trussler road. I would like it to be know that we whole heartedly disagree with the size of this proposed development. With the incredible building going on at the corners of Ira needles Blvd and Highland Road it has become increasingly evident that the current infrastructure can't handle even the amount of people and vehicles that are now living in those new buildings not to mention the eventual completion of even more currently under construction now. If you agree to the number of units that are proposed you will only be adding to a litany of problems with current congestion that has already been created by your past approvals. Gentlemen, simply put it is too much .... too fast with the current infrastructure not able to handle the number of residents you are being asked to allow into that small area. Please think this through and I welcome you to come out to the area and look at this proposed site and the impact it will also have on the home owners on Cora dr. Thanks for listening, Page 209 of 224 Darren Ali Sent from Outlook for Android Page 210 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: You don't often get email from Good morning Eric, Lisa Thompson P Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:15 AM Eric Schneider Bil loannidis Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road 60 Trussler Road .docx +. Learn whV this is important Please see the attached document pertaining to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. I will be participating on the September 12th Zoom Meeting. Please note that I am requesting a notice of decision. Lisa Thomoson Page 211 of 224 To: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner—City of Kitchener From: Lisa Thompson, Residenl Re: Development at 60 Trussler Road My home directly abuts the property in question. Let me start by saying that I recognize that there is a housing crisis, and that the City of Kitchener has committed to intensification. I know that development on this property is inevitable. The proposed development is simply too much. This property was the former site of one residential dwelling, with an outbuilding. To build 65 dwelling units is a 6500% increase, which to me is beyond what could be considered reasonable. The fact that a bylaw amendment, along with an increase in approved building height is required for this development is a primary concern. This area is zoned RES -1. Stacked townhouse are not a compatible addition to this community. Nowhere in this area are there three-story dwellings. In addition to the height of these buildings being an issue, stacked townhouses will have balconies, which will impact our privacy. The desirability and property value of my home will plummet. No one will want to live on "that side" of Cora Drive. A development proposal was already received and approved for this property, and this feels Like a bait and switch. I would ask the City of Kitchener to stand by its original decision. Failing that - I would ask this question: Were cluster or row townhouses even considered? Would they not be a much better compliment to the existing neighbourhood? Homeowners like me made very specific choices when we bought our homes. We wanted a low-rise neighbourhood, to live in a community where we connect with our neighbours. When the City places a higher priority on the wishes of developers (who don't live in the area, or care about the residents) than they do on the long-time residents who have paid taxes, they send a message that we don't matter. Are future residents more important than current ones? I see the term "mitigation" used in the supporting documents. This isn't mitigation, this is maximization, or more factually - a money grab. I also see the planner using language such as "would be a welcome compatible addition to this neighborhood". This development is neither welcome, nor compatible. Some of my specific concerns: Public Transportation This area of Kitchener is not well serviced by public transit (a fact which is noted in the planning opinion report). There are no sidewalks on Highland Road, and it is a dangerous Page 212 of 224 road for pedestrians. Building a development that is likely to attract buyers who will rely on public transportation in an area that does not offer easy access to public transportation would seem to be out of step with the City of Kitchener's guidelines. I believe the amount of parking allocated for this development will not meet the needs of the residents, as this area is vehicle dependant. I see that 73 parking spaces are proposed, with 10 of those being designated Visitor Parking. With 64 dwellings, that allocates one spot per unit (minus one). In an area that will force its residents to rely on personal transportation, I would expect that more than one resident per dwelling will have a car. How will that issue be addressed? It's likely that residents will utilize visitor parking. This will cause residents and visitors to seek street parking. There is no space for street parking on this piece of Trussler Road (and would be a safety issue if people park illegally). I am quite concerned the parking pressure will spill over to Cora Drive, as it is the only other alternative. Trussler Road There is an incredible amount of traffic pressure on Trussler Road, most specifically by the 7/8 highway access points. The development of the lands along Trussler Road/Ottawa Street is adding to an already existing traffic issue. Because of the volume of traffic on Trussler Road, it has become almost impossible to make left turns when exiting the highway. People are going to be killed. This specific area of Forest Heights can be considered very attractive because of its access to Highway 7/8. Adding another high- density development that is likely to add to that issue should be delayed or reconsidered until Trussler Road can be improved. There is also the monstrous high-rise approved nearby on Highland Road that will further impact this problem. Trussler Road around the proposed development is already slated for traffic calming, so this development will just add to that issue. Site Traf#fC There are 38 houses on Cora Drive. This development proposes 64 dwelling units. That is almost twice the number of dwellings being shoehorned into a much smaller space, the space of about 12 of our homes. The plan uses the term "driveway" but let's be honest, that will be equivalent to a road. A road that runs along our backyards. We will be subject to the comings and goings of 65+ cars in our backyard. Sadly, it would be preferable to have the roadway against our backyards, as opposed to three story stacked townhomes peering down on us. The loss of privacy, and impact of noise and air pollution will be devastingto us. We have spent a lot of time and money creating a backyard that we use and enjoy. Land Dimensions/Location Page 213 of 224 I don't feel that the uniqueness of this piece of land is being adequately considered. This is not a parcel of land fronting a city street, this is a very thin, long piece of land that abuts multiple homes, and will greatly negatively impact our enjoyment of our home's backyards. Referencing the City of Kitchener Official Plan Polices, I would submit that the following requirements are not being met by this proposed development: New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas oiladjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built [brm and the community character o0the established neighbourhood. • The lands can Cinction appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts C& adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number o0parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site * Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree oQsensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility. 10 Be transit -supportive and/or transit oriented. 1 return to my original question. Uthe city does go back on its previous approval and allows a change to the development to this property wouldn't row townhouses be the most reasonable option? The Patterson Planning Consultants have been hired by the developer, and it is in their best interests to deliver a plan that provides the highest ROI to the "numbered company" that hired them. This means presenting a plan with the most possible dwellings. They do not care about the current residents, or the impact this will have on our lives. Who is this numbered company, and why do they hide themselves? I respectfully request that the City of Kitchener task the developer with coming back with an alternative development proposal. I would also ask that an 8ft fence be guaranteed to be built along the abutting properties, and that every effort should be made to save as many of the old growth trees on the property as possible. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be. I believe this development proposal falls into that category. Lisa Thompson Page 214 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Brenda Menard Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 8:23 PM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: proposed development of 60 Trussler Road Some people who received this message don't often get email from h yarn why this is important Hi Eric and Bil, I have concerns regarding the proposed development of 60 Trussler Road. The structure is too large for that space of land. The proposed plan states there will be 73 parking spaces, however, city of Kitchener by-law requires 74 for this zone type, RES -5. The by-law requires 1 parking space per dwelling and 0.15 visitor parking space per dwelling. This brings the total required spaces to 73.6, which necessitates 74 parking spaces. Also, a source states the proposed plan has a Floor Space Ratio of 0.57 and minimum FSR, as required by the city of Kitchener by-law is 0.60. The structures do not fit in with the site lines of the neighbourhood, and, with being 3 stories high, will impede on the privacy of existing homes. Allowing the rezoning of this property sets the precedent for allowing larger developments in the future. Mature trees will be removed. These trees provide shade, beauty and natural habitat for wildlife. Presently, this is a quiet and peaceful neighbourhood, and a development of such high density greatly threatens that peace and quiet. Regarding traffic, I have huge conerns. It is already difficult to get through the roundabout at Ira Needles and Highland, entering from both sides of Highland. Therefore, the current road system cannot support the influx of the increased number of vehicles. With regard to existing municpal water, sewage and storm run-off, how is the city dealing with the increase of demand of these services? Won't removing green space and replacing it with the 3 structures, concrete and pavement increase the risk of flooding in the area? How are garbage, recylcing and snow removal vehicles supposed to have adequate access to the area? If there is on-site garbage storage, will increase unwanted animals and smells. In conclusion, I am very opposed to the proposed development of 60 Trussler Road. Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. Brenda. Page 215 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: You don't often get email from Sunday, September 1, 2024 2:39 PM Eric Schneider bilioannidis@kitchener.ca 60 Trussler Road zoning exemption learn why this is important Hello Eric, I live on Cora Drive and am concerned about the request for zoning height change and decreased side yard setback. The height exemption request is 11.6 metres, which to me is 38 feet higher. Google tells me the average height of a storey in an apartment is 10 feet. Does the requested exemption equate to one? two? three? additional stories on the stacked units? The card I received says the concept is for 3 buildings of 3 storeys each, yet picture show 2 storeys. How tall would these proposed stacked townhouses be? How much is the decreased year setback that has been requested? How many units would be permitted with no zoning exemption? Thanks Lynn c.c. Bil loannidis, ward 7 councillor Page 216 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from SYLVIA LAMMERS Sunday, September 1, 2024 11:58 AM Eric Schneider Trussler rd housing development Hi there To whom it may concern Learn why this is important As a long time resident living on costain crt just off Trussler rd, I am very concerned regarding the new housing development proposed for the land behind Devtek. I'm concerned about: -Added traffic on Trussler rd -it's a high density project in a low density neighborhood -possible overflow parking spilling onto ajacent streets. higher buildings overlooking neighbors Gary Lammers Page 217 of 224 Gary Lammers Sent from Rogers Yahoo Mail for Whone Page 218 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Gary Lammer! Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 11:53 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Trussler rd housing development [You don't often get email from am why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Hi there To whom it may concern As a long time resident living on costain crt just off Trussler rd, I am very concerned regarding the new housing development proposed for the land behind Devtek. I'm concerned about: -Added traffic on Trussler rd -it's a high density project in a low density neighborhood -possible overflow parking spilling onto ajacent streets. -higher buildings overlooking neighbors Gary Lammers Gary Lammers Page 219 of 224 Eric Schneider From: DARREN ALI Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 11:52 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bil loannidis Subject: 60 Trussler road Some people who received this message don't often get email from Gentlemen, Learn why this is important We are residents of this small three street community and have been told of a proposal to double our community with stacked housing on Trussler road. I would like it to be know that we whole heartedly disagree with the size of this proposed development. With the incredible building going on at the corners of Ira needles Blvd and Highland Road it has become increasingly evident that the current infrastructure can't handle even the amount of people and vehicles that are now living in those new buildings not to mention the eventual completion of even more currently under construction now. If you agree to the number of units that are proposed you will only be adding to a litany of problems with current congestion that has already been created by your past approvals. Gentlemen, simply put it is too much .... too fast with the current infrastructure not able to handle the number of residents you are being asked to allow into that small area. Please think this through and I welcome you to come out to the area and look at this proposed site and the impact it will also have on the home owners on Cora dr. Thanks for listening, Darren Ali Sent from Outlook for Android Page 220 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Violet Balzer Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 10:22 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca Subject: Opposition to Development at 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener You don't often get email from _earn why this is important Good Day Eric, We live on Trussler Road and wish to express our STRONG opposition to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. Originally, this property was a single home lot, which was sold and a reasonable proposal was planned to subdivide it into 5 executive lots. However, the current proposal for 64 dwelling units with 73 parking spaces is excessive and incompatible with our neighborhood. A development of that size was never planned for this area and approval of such overcrowding on this lot would be negligent abuse of maintaining the faith in our Mayor and Councilors to consider why our bylaws have been written and passed as they currently stand. We request that the City halt this application and restrict any future application to remain within all current bylaws / easements and consider the existing communities where such applications are entertained Bylaw enforcements are for everyone and cannot be changed to pad the pockets of developers We are shocked that this proposal was allowed to get this far in the planning stages While we understand some development is necessary, it should enhance, not overwhelm, the area. We firmly oppose increasing the building height to 11.6 meters and urge that any new structure be restricted to 2 stories. Additionally, reducing the side yard setbacks and reducing / removing or turning green space into parking lots is unacceptable. Our community needs areas for recreation, tranquility, and a sense of home. Furthermore, Trussler Road already faces traffic issues, and adding more density without addressing these problems needs to be addressed. We were promised traffic calming measures this year, and this proposal seems to Page 221 of 224 disregard that commitment. Also, to date, no traffic calming measures have been put in place. If you have any further information regarding this application or how to best understand our appeal rights we would like to receive it prior to the ZOOM meeting so that we are prepared. Thank you for considering our concerns. Best regards, Violet & David Balzer Page 222 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Sarah Knechtel Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 6:04 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Lot on trussler rd You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hi, We spoke a few years ago about the lot on trussler. There is a new sign about it now being re zoned into a 64 unit housing complex. I am absolutely furious about this ... I didn't move into a neighborhood to have my backyard looking onto a housing complex. I haven't been notified of this change in zoning, I also asked specifically the last time we spoke if this was the case and it wasn't. Has the rezoning passed already? I want the details of this. Sarah Page 223 of 224 LU c7 J \ O] CY z �o z m N II Ic it J U (n N Q W () c/i W m� z - =E LU w a'¢ ¢ a — a J d d o W z U — z HU H E o E E U W D a Jz6 w _ O 5. Of J Z T w O0 Q C ` ^ vJ J w Z w w 0 4. < Lij ~ LU I I U) J I I 0 U) > I ' 'S1 g: I I ? LU N N I I I � O � p 00 M � ¢ O � O N N F- C) � 0 I I I O Of LU LU I J U H o W Q t I LL w l)U V^